Bashar vs Ashraful

EngWIndian · #1 May 30, 2004, 05:08 PM

Ashraful = better batsman

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

IanW · #2 May 30, 2004, 05:14 PM

Quote:

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 · #3 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 · #4 May 30, 2004, 05:36 PM

Quote:

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 · #5 May 30, 2004, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BDFan

Quote:

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** · #6 May 30, 2004, 08:49 PM

Banglos is not a word.
I think you mean BANGALIS or BANGLADESHIS.
Cheers.

Quote:

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

Rubu · #7 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 · #8 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 · #9 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 · #10 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 · #11 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 · #12 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** · #13 May 31, 2004, 01:21 AM

an innocent use and we all jump down Ian's throat - jeez

rafiq · #14 May 31, 2004, 01:21 AM

[quote]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 · #15 May 31, 2004, 01:25 AM

I didn't know aussies call us banglos

. 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 · #16 May 31, 2004, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zunaid
an innocent use and we all jump down Ian's throat - jeez

Partypooper!

IanW · #17 May 31, 2004, 01:59 AM

Quote:

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 · #18 May 31, 2004, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rafiq
I didn't know aussies call us banglos

. 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** · #19 May 31, 2004, 02:00 AM

it bd is best abbrv. for us.

**Zunaid** · #20 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* · #21 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 · #22 May 31, 2004, 02:13 AM

Two more left:

Banglas and Bangers

**Zunaid** · #23 May 31, 2004, 02:17 AM

Quote:

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** · #24 May 31, 2004, 02:19 AM

Quote:

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 · #25 May 31, 2004, 02:23 AM

Let's start calling ourselves Banglas, it might catch the wind before it's too late.