Constructor: Bill Haight
Relative difficulty: Medium (3:03)
![]()
THEME: Tennis, anyone? — familiar phrases reclued as if they have something to do with tennis:
Theme answers:
![]()
I am routinely stunned that the NYT is still accepting puzzles that are this conceptually remedial. This loose, shabby assortment of tennis terms held together with weak Wackiness™really should not be good enough to make the Best Puzzle in the World (or whatever the NYT is calling itself these days). You can find a bunnnnnch of similar kinds of themes in the databases, usually in much older puzzles, back when just having a random set of last (or first) words from some field (any field) was considered substantial enough to make a crossword theme. But most older puzzles of that ilk at least had something else holding them together, not just a grab bag of terms. There's more than one that runs through the series GAME, SET, MATCH:
![]()
![]()
Five things:
[Follow Rex Parker on Twitter and Facebook]
Relative difficulty: Medium (3:03)
Theme answers:
- POP SINGLES (17A: Tennis with dad?)
- GIMME A BREAK (23A: Losing tennis player's prayer?)
- CONTEMPT OF COURT (37A: Dislike for tennis?) [note: "Contempt" is much, much stronger than "dislike"]
- WHAT A RACKET! (48A: "Wow, no wonder you're playing such great tennis!"?)
- FALL IN LOVE (59A: Lose every set of a tennis match 6-0?)
nounGOLF
• • •
And here's one that's got a revealer:
I don't really see how NET, BALL, COURT, and RACKET are related very closely to TENNIS ELBOW, specifically, but ... you get the idea. You can find a bunch of "these words are from tennis" puzzles. It's been done. But even if it were being redone, that's not a reason to condemn it. It's just that this is so lackluster. So pointless. How can submissions to the NYT be so sparse and poor that this is what's passing muster? The fill is mercifully clean, I'll give it that. I mean, not great, but not wretched. The theme tries to rise above its boringness with these wacky clues, which only make the puzzle sadder. The wordplay is poor. The choice of SINGLES as one of your tennis words is bizarre. It's a term, sure, but there have to be many, many others that could've given you phrases more amenable to evocative cluing than POP SINGLES (?). Something SERVE? Something FAULT? Something SET? I dunno. And this is the problem. There are scores of familiar tennis terms. Why these? What's the rationale? There is none. Ye OLDE SLOP.
Five things:
- 1A: Turn away, as one's gaze (AVERT) — missed a chance at EVERT here. Weird.
- 39D: Italian city you might be "leaning" toward visiting? (PISA)— Me: [reads first two words of clue and writes in ASTI]
- 26A: In a trite way (BANALLY) — I dare you to actually say this word in conversation. I guarantee you're gonna get a "wha?" Sounds like DENALI or, I don't know, some kind of Polish food. "Tritely" actually seems much more likely to be a word one might say.
- 2D: Relative of a cello (VIOL) — gotta say, my hopes sank here. VIOL is crosswordese, and felt like an omen of bad things to come. But as I say, the fill largely held up.
- 13D: Snide remarks (SNARK) — looks like a plural—not a plural. Luckily, I had the "K" before I ever saw the clue (weirdly finished in the NE)
[Follow Rex Parker on Twitter and Facebook]