PDA

View Full Version : Bashar vs Ashraful


EngWIndian
May 30, 2004, 05:08 PM
Ashraful = better batsman

all he needs is more experiance, then he'll be batting at no.3

IanW
May 30, 2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by EngWIndian
Ashraful = better batsman

all he needs is more experiance, then he'll be batting at no.3

With Omar, Bashar and Ashraful, the Banglos dont have a bad core to a batting lineup ...

Zobair
May 30, 2004, 05:29 PM
Ashraful is still really a young boy...19!!! He is going to go places. In about 3 years he will be a superstar. He just needs to come to terms to his abilities.

BDFan
May 30, 2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by EngWIndian
Ashraful = better batsman

all he needs is more experiance, then he'll be batting at no.3

why do you think ash is better? ash is good but so is bashar, and bashar has a higher average

EngWIndian
May 30, 2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by BDFan
Originally posted by EngWIndian
Ashraful = better batsman

all he needs is more experiance, then he'll be batting at no.3

why do you think ash is better? ash is good but so is bashar, and bashar has a higher average

i saw Bashar slogging the ball all over the place, im surprised that WI didnt set him up earlier. Ashraful showed much more talent, he took on the spinners and fast bowlers, hitting the ball down the ground, and picking out the gaps (except for the odd occation).

well done to the young lad, like smithy, they both will learn as they go along.

[Edited on 30-5-2004 by EngWIndian]

Tehsin
May 30, 2004, 08:49 PM
Banglos is not a word.
I think you mean BANGALIS or BANGLADESHIS.
Cheers.



With Omar, Bashar and Ashraful, the Banglos dont have a bad core to a batting lineup ...

Rubu
May 30, 2004, 11:23 PM
i see your point. bashar is at his late 20's or early 30, whereas ash is 19. they are not comparable really. actually they are representing two generations of bd cricket. another thing, its much easier for ash to improve than bashar, mainly because of age.

at bashar's age, ash will be much better than what bashar is now.

IanW
May 31, 2004, 12:50 AM
[quote]Originally posted by tehsin
Banglos is not a word.
I think you mean BANGALIS or BANGLADESHIS.
Cheers.


[quote]

Nope, you have the Banglos, together with the Pakis, the Boks, the Kiwis and the Poms. Oh yeah, and the Lankans.

You blokes are playing the Windies.

We arent sure if the Zim's will stay in Test Cricket.

Does this all make sense, mate ?

Ian 'Aussie' Whitchurch

Arnab
May 31, 2004, 01:03 AM
I sometimes wonder which bastardized nickname will stick with Bangladeshis: Bangles, Banglas or Banglos? A new one seems to crop up every other month.

I have no problem with nicks, unless they are used in official literature.

BTW, Ian, what are Indians called? Hindus? Sand N***? :)

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by Arnab]

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by Zunaid : word]

rafiq
May 31, 2004, 01:09 AM
If I had to pick the least offending nickname that we should be called by, it would have to be Banglas. Adding a "s" to the language we speak seems just about right for the average white guy perpaps too drunk and most likely too ignorant to bother learning who the __ they are talking about. And its cute without being overtly offensive. The other ones are just retarded.

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by rafiq]

Shubho
May 31, 2004, 01:16 AM
Bangladeshis have various nicks. Among other South Asians, we are known as 'Bongs'. The Brits just lump us in one basket, and call us all 'Pakis'. The Aussies call us 'Banglos'. Continental Europeans call us 'Banglas'. I've even heard the term 'Bungles'.

As for the Indians, I believe the Aussies refer to them as 'Currymunchers'. Which is fine by me, as long as they don't call us that.

By the way, what sort of a name is 'Aussie' anyway. Or 'Ozzie' for that matter. To me, they'll always be friggin' Kangascrews.

Arnab
May 31, 2004, 01:20 AM
Yeah, the thing is we do not have the right to pick our own nick, only the other nationals do. :)

Grrrrr.

Zunaid
May 31, 2004, 01:21 AM
an innocent use and we all jump down Ian's throat - jeez

rafiq
May 31, 2004, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by IanW
[quote]Originally posted by tehsin
Banglos is not a word.
I think you mean BANGALIS or BANGLADESHIS.
Cheers.


[quote]

Nope, you have the Banglos, together with the Pakis, the Boks, the Kiwis and the Poms. Oh yeah, and the Lankans.

You blokes are playing the Windies.

We arent sure if the Zim's will stay in Test Cricket.

Does this all make sense, mate ?

Ian 'Aussie' Whitchurch

you don't need a super-high IQ to figure out the difference between these two sets of adjectives: (Lankans, Windies) and (Poms, Pakis, Boks, Kiwis, Aussies, Banglos). The latter set can be divided into what further subsets:

Abbreviations commonly used as a racial slur and therefore harmful: (Pakis). Poms might belong here, depends on intent of the user.
Descriptors, including abbreviations, which are happily used by people from countries in question and therefore harmless: (Kiwis, Aussies). Boks may belong here (abbrv of Springboks)
Totally retarded since it is not based on the name of the country, the language, etc - plus it sounds like a lazy-*** attempt at an abbreviation: (Banglos).

rafiq
May 31, 2004, 01:25 AM
I didn't know aussies call us banglos:D. I think they should take the lead of the much superior continental europeans and immediately start calling us Banglas.

btw, who calls us Bangles - I like that, it's catchy and those girls were cute.

Arnab
May 31, 2004, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Zunaid
an innocent use and we all jump down Ian's throat - jeez

Partypooper!

IanW
May 31, 2004, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by rafiq

Descriptors, including abbreviations, which are happily used by people from countries in question and therefore harmless: (Kiwis, Aussies). Boks may belong here (abbrv of Springboks)
Totally retarded since it is not based on the name of the country, the language, etc - plus it sounds like a lazy-*** attempt at an abbreviation: (Banglos).

You've never heard 'Pom' used as a derogative ?

BTW, 'Skippies' or 'Skips' is a common use by Vietnamese etc to refer to Anglo Australians, coming from the old TV character Skippy the Bush Kangaroo.

A 'Skip' is also an Australian term for a rubbish bin.

Cheers.

IanW
May 31, 2004, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by rafiq
I didn't know aussies call us banglos:D. I think they should take the lead of the much superior continental europeans and immediately start calling us Banglas.

btw, who calls us Bangles - I like that, it's catchy and those girls were cute.

That'd be the West Indians,

Nasif
May 31, 2004, 02:00 AM
it bd is best abbrv. for us.

Zunaid
May 31, 2004, 02:07 AM
bangles is oft used on rsc.. and the bangles were cute

i am fine with banglas ..

the bds sound awkward
the banglos i will pass -
the bungles, bungledesh - used by bigots on scb, so no no
the bangals - sure; proud to be a bangal

reverse_swing
May 31, 2004, 02:12 AM
Zunaid bhai we have now separate identity.If u r proud to be a bangals/banglas then wt is the diff bt west bengal people & us?

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by rezwan1977]

chinaman
May 31, 2004, 02:13 AM
Two more left:

Banglas and Bangers

Zunaid
May 31, 2004, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by rezwan1977
Zunaid bhai we have now separate identity.If u r proud to be a bangals/banglas then wt is the diff bt west bengal people & us?

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by rezwan1977]

west bengalis are not bangals, we are :)

Zunaid
May 31, 2004, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by chinaman
Two more left:

Banglas and Bangers

Bangers - too close to bangers and mash; and great opporunity for salacious misrepresentions..

But, all this is moot - we may cry till we are blue in the face - some nick will stick and we will hereafter be called that

chinaman
May 31, 2004, 02:23 AM
Let's start calling ourselves Banglas, it might catch the wind before it's too late.

Zunaid
May 31, 2004, 02:30 AM
Ian, look what you did. Now you have caused dissention in the ranks. :)

Time to split this and move to Forget Cricket?

suds
May 31, 2004, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by chinaman
Let's start calling ourselves Banglas, it might catch the wind before it's too late.

Hard luck chinaman! Apart from fuelling to the idle-but-(what-the-heck)-"academic" arguments here, this thread is taking us nowhere near redirecting the wind. And yes, some of the posts are disproving our idea that we left our junior-school-life-futile-obstinacy to preserve our liberty to nickname ourselves. Well, maybe we are just too old not to become oversized kids in the knickers.

Taking a leave from know-it-all-supersized-adult as above, are we just deserting the 'tigers'?

Ahmed_B
May 31, 2004, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by EngWIndian
i saw Bashar slogging the ball all over the place, im surprised that WI didnt set him up earlier.


he is probably pulling himself out of his recent bad-patch..
u shud hav seen him at his peak-form!
Bashar is a class player.. lets hope he comes back in full..

reverse_swing
May 31, 2004, 05:40 AM
I don't know what is the definition of class player u mean but Bashar definitely not a technically solid batsman.

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by reverse_swing]

AsifTheManRahman
May 31, 2004, 10:23 AM
Bashar is 32, Agent, not in his late twenties...:)

no i don't think Bashar is technically solid, but I don't find any reason why we should compare him with Ash. He gets the runs at no.3, and Ash is also doing a good job recently. So I think it's going to be best keeping the order as it is.

Ahmed_B
May 31, 2004, 12:43 PM
All our batsmen... starting from the openers upto the late mid-order, suffer from more MENTAL ERRORS than TECHNICAL ERRORS.
They have all got technical faults.. true..
but its actually their problem in attitude and confidence that stop them from having full application of their skills.
So often we see them making silly mistakes and get out or put themselves in danger!
'Confidence' is a very big word on which all of our batsmen still need to work a lot!

And yes.. I agree with many here, that Bash & Ash ar not to be compared.. they both r doing fine in their own places.

[Edited on 31-5-2004 by crickethorizon]