Headingley 2019 by Eclogue
The number of each batter indicates the row/column of each entry; for each row/column clues are in the correct order. A score greater than zero associated with each clue indicates a misprint in modulo 26 somewhere in the clue. So (i) in the first Australian innings, Warner’s score of 61 generates a misprint correction 9 letters forwards or backwards from the letter shown; (ii) in the second innings, the clue is normal, as Warner scored zero. Solvers must highlight a reference to the winning team and their margin of victory in the completed grid, as opposed to what might have been. 8dn (ii) is in SOED.
Well, those instructions are simple enough, aren’t they? Far from it. I had to read them several times before fully understanding. I felt that the phrase “modulo 26” could, maybe, have done with a bit of explanation. For those who don’t know, it basically means to divide the given number by 26 and keep only the remainder. So 61 divided by 26 gives 2 remainder 9. Hence the correction of 9 letters forwards or backwards – in this case, B(2) + 9 gives K(11). Equally it could have given B(2) + (26 – 9) = S(19).
I know that’s it’s stating the obvious but this puzzle is more than a little cricket-based. There are tons of cricket references in the clues and I haven’t bothered listing them all as I’m bound to miss some and they just might get in the way of my blog. But feel free to show off your cricket knowledge in the comments.
Apparently these two nations regularly play each other in a competition known as “The Ashes” – who knew?
So, it seems that the puzzle is based on an actual cricket match that was played between Australia and England at Headingley from 22-26 August 2019. Wikipedia Link.
And, in that match, the scores were as listed in the clues. And, here’s a link to the score card. https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-world-test-championship-2019-2021-1195334/england-vs-australia-3rd-test-1152848/full-scorecard.
I found the clues quite hard to solve and I hoped that the letter corrections might lead to a helpful message but I soon gave up on the idea. Also, some answers were completely checked so they effectively solved themselves. When putting the blog together there were two I misprints I couldn’t justify and I received help from HolyGhost and Duncanshiell. I couldn’t solve Australia-Harris-8 at all but I then realised that I had solved Australia-Hazlewood-4 but had forgotten how. So thanks guys for the help.
In the completed grid on the main diagonal, we see AUSSIE ONE RUN.
As you may have guessed, I don’t know much about cricket so I don’t really understand the phrase, “as opposed to what might have been”. I really hope that someone can enlighten me.
I enjoyed the puzzle despite my lack of cricket knowledge – many thanks to Eclogue.
| Australia (Across) | Runs |
M26 |
Clue |
Entry |
Wordplay |
| 1 Warner | 61 | 9 | Newly settled bkid breaking toe with pad on base (7) | ADOPTEE | TOE+PAD+E (base) anag: breaking |
| 0 | 0 | One young cricketer amasses runs (4) | BRAT | BAT (cricketer) around Runs | |
| 2 Harris | 8 | 8 | Notts at first ldogging source of valuable prize partnership (5) | UNION | UNIO (source of valuable prize)+N[otts] (at first) |
| 19 | 19 | SLara initially in confusion with knee-bending movement (4) | PLIÉ | PIE (confusion) around L[ara] (initially) | |
| 3 Khawaja | 8 | 8 | Loow calls getting notice initially put Surrey season to shame (5) | PSSTS | First letters of Put Surrey Season To Shame |
| 23 | 23 | Indian Boby, in service, fine to take tea around (6) | CHOKRA | OK (fine)+R (take) inside CHA (tea) | |
| 4 Labuschagne | 74 | 22 | Dangerous striker holds record in series with no cpguts (4) | SEPS | EP (record) inside S[erie]S (no guts) |
| 80 | 2 | More than one canp employ cut in emergency (7) | SHACKOS | HACK (employ cut) inside SOS (emergency) | |
| 5 Head | 0 | 0 | Take in tea having returned for award once (4) | ARET | TEA (rev: having returned) around R (take) |
| 25 | 25 | Head in innings on exotic isle, it having problem with hguts? (7) | ILEITIS | I[nnings] (head)+ISLE IT (anag: exotic) | |
| 6 Wade | 0 | 0 | Wade’s last to appear behind image, old, tense and knotted (6) | PICOTÉ | PIC (image)+Old+Tense+[wad]E (last) |
| 33 | 7 | Dicky Bird incurring mfine for having done wrong in the past (6) | WROKEN | WREN (dicky bird) around OK (fine) | |
| 7 Paine | 11 | 11 | Sort of scnuff and go on strike (6) | RAPPEE | RAP (strike)+PEE (go) |
| 0 | 0 | Duck before single call driving old man, say (6) | OARING | O (duck)+A (single)+RING (call) | |
| 8 Pattinson | 2 | 2 | Advance as batsman starts tright field leg (7, 2 words) | BRING ON | B[atsman] (start)+Right+ING (field)+ON (leg) |
| 20 | 20 | Beasts sledged snoug (4) | GNUS | SNUG (anag: sledged) | |
| 9 Cummins | 0 | 0 | Oily stuff impaired score over line (7) | CREOSOL | SCORE+Over+Line (anag: impaired) |
| 6 | 6 | That which bheats before reverse sweeping? (4) | ETNA | ANTE (before) (rev: reverse) I’m not really sure what sweeping is doing there |
|
| 10 Lyon | 1 | 1 | Nameless ruler followed by JKabir, perhaps, in African capital (6) | KIGALI | KI[n]G (ruler; nameless)+(Kabir) ALI – a cricketer |
| 9 | 9 | Australia getting in to carry fworth in the past (5) | CARAT | CART (carry) around Australia | |
| 11 Hazlewood | 1 | 1 | Theoretical bcore a supposition in The Riverside area? (4) | NIFE | IF (supposition) inside NE (north-east) I think it’s a reference to Riverside Ground in Chester-le-Street, which will be north-east of many solvers |
| 4 | 4 | Touch South African male who consumes arnts (5) | TATOU | TAT (touch)+OU (SA male) | |
| Extras | 13 | 13 | In the manner of Byron, night-watchmen’s times getting first lady to fsaint (4) | EVES | EVE (first lady)+Saint |
| 27 | 1 | Mess in feast bowling plates? (7) | MEISSEN | MEN IN East (anag: bowling) | |
| Totals | First Innings 179
Second Innings 246 |
||||
| England (Down) | Runs |
M26 |
Clue |
Entry |
Wordplay |
| 1 Burns | 9 | 9 | These, with a vicious sbite, have one trembling poetically before Burns’ end (4) | ASPS | ASP (same as aspen: one trembling)+[burn]S (end) |
| 7 | 7 | Swpine in a spot of bother taking run (7) | PRICKLE | PICKLE (spot of bother) around Runs | |
| 2 Roy | 9 | 9 | WFreak perhaps batting ruse (4) | USER | RUSE (anag: battling) |
| 8 | 8 | Dangerous proteain, a stand overcomes Roy’s leading edge (5) | ABRIN | A+BIN (stand) around R[oy] (leading edge) | |
| 3 Root | 0 | 0 | As a gamble, following duck, review shows no edges (6, 2 words) | ON SPEC | O (duck)+[i]NSPEC[t] (review; no edges) |
| 77 | 25 | Nice leavers Root’s leadership is supported by half of Carnegie (5) | RÉGIE | R[oot] (leadership)+[carn]EGIE (half of) | |
| 4 Denly | 12 | 12 | Shtone before block producing break in sporting activity (7, 2 words) | PIT STOP | PIT (stone)+STOP (block) |
| 50 | 24 | Hangs about ignoring length yielding bdunces (5) | OAFS | [l]OAFS (hangs about; minus Length) | |
| 5 Stokes | 8 | 8 | Substance in grain sipx abroad, after which reverse catches Stokes out (6) | SEITEN | SEI (six in Italian: abroad)+NET[s] (catches; rev: reverse; minus Stokes) |
| 135 | 5 | Stokes, with more than 50% of island fielled… (4) | SLEW | Stokes+LEW[is] (island; more than half its letters) | |
| 6 Bairstow | 4 | 4 | Cut off by waxter rubbing linseed endlessly (6) | ENISLE | LINSEE[d] (endlessly; anag: rubbing) |
| 36 | 10 | …calls for attention to maiden after say, too much self-rewgard? (6) | EGOISM | EG (say)+OIS (calls for attention)+Maiden | |
| 7 Buttler | 5 | 5 | Spursn collapse of cheers when run out for wicket (6) | ESCHEW | CHEE[r]S (anag: collapse of) with Run replaced by Wicket |
| 1 | 1 | SRock one heartlessly, with nothing settled in the middle (6) | OOLITE | O[n]E (heartlessly) around O (nothing)+LIT (settled) | |
| 8 Woakes | 5 | 5 | Woakes’ fifth isn once a good measure? (4) | EPHA | [woak]E (fifth)+PH (public house; in is an old word for inn)+A |
| 1 | 1 | One run to Australia bcut nearly of Asian origin? (6) | IRANIC | I (one)+Run+Australia+NIC[e] (cut; nearly) | |
| 9 Archer | 7 | 7 | Those with common purpose, wpound up over Archer’s third (4) | BLOC | LB (pound; rev: up)+Over+[ar]C[her] (third) |
| 15 | 15 | Ofut Archer finally goes at drinks (7) | ORGEATS | GOES AT+[arche]R (finally) anag: out | |
| 10 Broad | 4 | 4 | Cricketer Clarke perhaps gets single after lheap we hear (5) | RIKKI | RIKK (sounds like rick: heap)+I (single) Rikki Clarke: cricketer |
| 0 | 0 | Not out? Order going up for openers (6) | INTROS | IN (not out)+SORT (rev: going up) | |
| 11 Leach | 1 | 1 | HGot up after England’s first is badly eaten into? (5) | EROSE | E[ngland] (first)+ROSE (got up) |
| 1 | 1 | Sort running out, as run out could be a slosth! (4) | UNAU | A[s r]UN [o]U[t] minus the letters of SORT; anag: run out | |
| Extras | 3 | 3 | Perhaps comeb wielding drive lyrically after cricket interval (7) | TEASING | TEA (cricket interval)+SING (drive, lyrically) |
| 31 | 31 | Openers of Aussie team evoke banse of Bradman, one who was worshipped (4) | ATEN | A[ussie]+T[eam]+E[voke] (openers)+[bradma]N (base of) | |
| Totals | First Innings 67
Second Innings 362-9 |
||||
The other diagonal (“ENG ONE WICKET”) highlights the actual result, as opposed to what might have been (“AUSSIE ONE WICKET”).
Ken, AUSSIE ONE RUN is what might have been. ENG ONE WICKET in the other long diagonal is the actual result.
This was a highly original puzzle with an unusual twist to the method of identifying a misprinted letter in all but seven of the clues.
The bottom left corner was my last to fill. Having got the thematic item AUSSIE ONE RUN already, I had to get as far as EN?O?? WICKET to realise what the last of those items must be (and I looked up the result to check it). Of the clues, SLEW was my last to get. Realising ‘killed’ = SLEW at last made this possible – I had forgotten about ‘stokes’ = S, which I have encountered only once before in a crossword. It was a good set of clues.
Thanks to Eclogue, and to kenmac for the blog and the effort that went into it. I agree that the ‘modulo’ device in the preamble could perhaps have been expanded upon for those not accustomed to using that term.
H___G____ @1
Ah! I noticed that it started ENG but then gave up when it wasn’t going to be ENGLAND.
I’ll amend things in a while
HG@1 You beat me to it!
This was right up my street and very enjoyable, many thanks Eclogue. I particularly liked the references to somewhat lesser-known players (my thought process was along the lines of “surely that’s not a reference to Kabir Ali/Rikki Clarke? Yep, it is”) but they have played for England so fair enough I reckon.
I agree that some guidance on what modulo26 was would have been helpful. I did look it up, but as it turned out the puzzle could be solved without actually doing any of the maths. A neat way to incorporate the individual scores, I guess.
Sorry, HG, we overlapped (again!).
Well, I thought that this was marvellous. A really clever idea, with some very tricky clues to untangle and a very timely reminder of previous glories (as it was the weekend of the recent Ashes Test Match at Headingley). I can’t understand why anybody would have an issue with modulo 26. If we were all expected to know (last week) that Donne is pronounced dun then individuals can pick up their Chambers (or use the internet) and educate themselves with a bit of basic mathematics. An example was given by the setter within the rubric (and very clearly too I thought) as to what to do, so there is no excuse as far as I’m concerned. No quarter given here I’m afraid.
I noted that we’ve had SHAKOS / SHACKOS as answers over the last three weeks, just after OPINE was recently used for two weeks running; odd how particular words crop up so regularly within these grids.
I must take issue with the possible alternative outcome as AUSSIE ONE WICKET. The scores were tied when Stokes hit the winning run(s), so if the wicket had fallen instead then the result would be MATCH TIED (as opposed to MATCH DRAWN should either rain or bad light have intervened). I appreciate that Leach was fortunate not to have been run out a few deliveries previously, but the fact remains that he wasn’t, due to poor fielding by the Aussies; any alternative result could be imagined as what might have been, the only possible alternative once Leach scampered through for his single run would have been MATCH TIED (given the prevailing weather).
All in all a lovely puzzle … and at a most pertinent moment too. Tomorrow we head back to Old Trafford … COME ON ENGLAND !!! … bring that lovely little urn back home again.
Apologies … in my comment above @6 I meant AUSSIE ONE RUN, and not AUSSIE ONE WICKET.
… and also me @6 : MATCH DRAWN would, of course, also encompass all of the necessary overs having being bowled … or by simply running out of time for any further play.
Thankfully on the day in question, rain, light and time were not of the essence.
AMEN.
Huge admiration for grid layout with the Headingley 2019 Test to compare to this year.
BUT clues far too difficult for this midrange solver=-and although i had a vague idea of modulo-it made the preamble sound like
“Whats the frequency Kenneth?”
So many thanks for blog and chapeau to those who were able to persevere
Me_Sat… @6
You make a good point about the setter’s use of the phrase ‘in modulo 26’, with a worked example, to describe the displacement of the corrected letter from the misprinted letter. But it evidently caused a little difficulty with some solvers, and it would have been possible to explain it in terms like ‘the remainder after dividing the number by 26’, perhaps also mentioning ‘cycling the alphabet if necessary’.
I know of one (expert) solver who was put off by the combination of ‘in modulo 26’ and the worked example, didn’t wish to educate herself and moved on to something else!
I didn’t know modulo either, but I thought the example given made it clear enough. This was a test I was surprised to come through; early in the week I almost abandoned, because of all the counting, but it stuck with me. Somehow I completely failed to digest the significance of the title (or even notice it); in the light of it being an actual game, the whole puzzle feels rather brilliant.
Thanks to Eclogue and kenmac
Apologies for perhaps stating the obvious here but it might be worth reiterating that it was perfectly possible to complete this without any use of modulo 26 (apologies, Eclogue) by just recognising that each of the non-zero clues contained a misprint somewhere. As usual, once a few entries had gone in this became far less daunting.
Alan B @ 10 : Any modulo would have worked of course, as long as Eclogue set the clues appropriately, since the key factor here was actually the remainder and NOT the exact modulo : but 26 does work beautifully well as it corresponds perfectly to the number of letters in the English alphabet. Eleven would work too … for the eleven members of the cricket team, or twelve if you include ‘Mr Extras’, who if you do the sums on the scorecard actually gave AUS a hand (Extras : AUS 40, ENG 34). Without him, none of the fuss in the final few overs would have happened.
By the way : … expert that “didn’t wish to educate herself” … I’ve written to Chambers, and they intend to list that as a definition under ‘oxymoron’. 😉
This was great fun and incredibly clever – a lot of the pleasure came from just appreciating the construction. I particularly enjoyed discovering both results in the grid and having to choose the right one.
(I didn’t have mshah’s problem (@6) with “Aussie one run” – my memory is fairly vague but I think that seemed like the result that very nearly happened, or one of them – probably more so than the tie. Good enough, I reckon.)
The only problem was that some of the cleverness didn’t really connect to the process of solving. For instance, it’s a pity people were put off by the “modulo 26” stuff because it really had nothing to do with solving the puzzle. As Kippax points out @12, all you needed to know was that there was misprint – we don’t usually expect help finding the correct letter! It was just a bit of fun to connect the scores to the clues – clever but a bit unnecessary. That said, the transformation of all of a genuine scorecard – and a classic at that – into a set of clues is pretty astonishing so I see why Eclogue wanted to incorporate the scores too.
Me_Sat… @13
Loved your comment! Good luck with your approach to Chambers(!) – they are so good at ignoring whatever submission you might make to them.
The ‘expert’ is someone close to me – she left concepts like ‘modulo’, ‘denominators’ and ‘vulgar fractions’ behind at school and is at an age when she wishes to indulge her expertise (in themed barred-grid crosswords) rather than extend it into other spheres.
It pretty well all been said. An enjoyable puzzle with some clever misprints. I have only a passing interest in cricket, so had to look up some of the allusions to confirm my guesses at the parsing. I had no problem with the modulo 26 twist – a traditional clock uses modulo 12, so 15 hours becomes 3 o’clock and, of course, a computer uses modulo 2. As Kippax@12 observed, it was not even necessary but it was useful to confirm the corrections or cut down the options.
My main problem was parsing 10 Lyon (I): The answer was obviously KIGALI but how do I justify ALI? I was unaware of the cricketer Ali Kabir but found online that Ali Kabir Shah was a deceased religious figure and Ali Jabis was a some sort of Facebook star, so I opted for the latter as likely to be more well-known.
Thanks to Eclogue and KenAdmin.
Although I admired how well this puzzle was put together, I was delighted to be able to ignore much of the cricket stuff. I absorbed only as much as I needed to solve the clues, and was relieved that I did virtually nothing with all the scores. I’d seen more than enough of cricket in the week leading up to the puzzle, and in the days around the puzzle, so I just batted the rest away. I don’t feel at all bad about this, complete lack of interest in (and enthusiasm for) the subject, knowing that cricket lovers might appreciate every one of the clever strokes involved. And I think that’ll always be the case with such immersive puzzles.
Me_Sat..
I’m no expert (that word again!) on cricket, but I’m puzzled by your analysis of what might have been. I understand how the match could have been tied, exactly as you described, but if Leach had been run out in the penultimate over (the decisive moment when the Aussies misfielded) the result would have been AUSSIE ONE RUN (‘what might have been’). That must surely be what the setter had in mind, unless I have missed something.
Alan B @18 : Indeed, that might well have been what the setter meant … or perhaps also when Stokes got rapped upon the pad and was given not out, with AUS having lost the final review of their innings for senselessly appealing for an LBW decision from a ball that clearly pitched outside the line of leg stump (for which you cannot ever be given out). Analysis later showed that if AUS had a review left, and if they had chosen to use it (which no doubt they would have), then Stokes would have gone. Who knows. In either case, (rightly or wrongly) a wicket was not adjudged to have fallen and so the batsman stayed at his crease.
The fact is that Leach got his only run of the second innings, the scores were then tied, and from then on only two results were possible, if as I stated, we might sensibly discount the possibility of the match being declared a draw (as there was still well over a day left to play).
I appreciate fully what Eclogue might have meant, as I believe you did too, but we must understand what actually happened. If AUS had bowled ENG out within two overs in their first innings, then things might have been different. If ENG had caught every difficult chance that AUS had given them in the slip cordon then things might have been different. Neither of those outcomes happened though. There are numerous scenarios as to what might have been … but we can only summise on the alternative outcomes of what actually was, not what might have been.
Within the laws of the game, the FINAL moment of there being any other possible alternative outcome to the result of the match was just before Ben Stokes thumped the ball through the covers for four runs.
Match over. ENG win by one wicket.
Thanks, Me_Sat… I’m in awe at your deep knowledge of that match. AUSSIE ONE RUN was without doubt one of the (many) ‘might have been’ results of the match shortly before it was over, and I hope Ken has seen that too.
Alternative ending :
Cummins to Stokes … running in, at a frantic pace, arms and legs going like the clappers, knowing that he has zero runs left to play with, the field packed with multiple catchers, all in close around the batsman, hoping for an edge to be pouched by a safe pair of hands … and he’s BOWLED HIM ! … and so, quite incredibly, this remarkable match comes to an end.
Match over. Match tied.
(Never happened, but it might have been) 😉
[Me_Sat…
Understood. Point taken. Almost anything ‘might have been’.]
Wow. What a brilliant puzzle. I have not an iota of interest in cricket, but was bowled over by the cleverness of it all.
I too was stumped by modulo 26 (for a while thinking I had to swap letters within the clue) but once I had four or six answers I had a great innings and for once the endgame didn’t catch me out.
Thank you for some great entertainment.
Fun for the setter. Not so much for this solver. Though I seem to be in a minority.
I’m another who enjoyed this hugely clever IQ despite a total lack of cricket erudition. Which made the wordplay involving players’ names a bit strenuous, but never mind. Mod-26 was however not a problem. Thanks all round!
I though this very clever and loved the originality of using a cricket scorecard as the basis of a puzzle. I’m a cricket fan so this no doubt helped the appreciation of the construction around a thrilling match.
Bravo Eclogue !
Some sympathy with Bingy @24. A reasonable enough puzzle but it won’t make my Pick of the Year list.
I am certain that setter is referring to the very late LBW appeal against Stokes that was given not out, a decision which would have been overturned upon review if Australia had not used up all their reviews. If the umpire had given Stokes out, a review by England would not have overturned the decision. This was an exceptionally sharp instance of a could-have-been, and much commented on at the time.
26 is the right choice of modulus for anything involving letter-shifting, because it’s exactly the modulus which agrees automatically with the usual cyclic model of the alphabet, with A following Z, that is used in most letter-shifting situation. As such, if we ignore the “modulo 26” instruction we still end up with the same result. If we shift a letter by 135 places in the alphabet, we may as well instead shift by 5 places, since the first 130 (= 26 + 26 + 26 + 26 + 26) shifts will have the same net effect as doing nothing.
Dave W @16:
The cricketer’s name is Kabir Ali (not Ali Kabir). He was a very decent bowler, at both county and international level. His England career was ended abruptly after the Sri Lanka batter Sanath Jayasuriya absolutely marmalised the England bowling attack in a 50-over match in 2006. Ali’s bowling figures for that match were terrible, but so were everybody else’s, and at the end of the day it was his bad luck to be bowling there that day. Not being one of the in-crowd, he never got any more chances.