*Official* Bangladesh in England

[Black_Warrior]

This is indeed a tremendous win...and the best thing about it..which is the strongest argument for their improvement is the fact that they won this without their best batsman firing.
While Tamim not scoring was disappointing..the fact that Bangladesh could post decent totals in both the games without him firing is surely a positive sign.. Siddiqui, Kayes and Raquibul stood up and delivered like a man... Well done..
Razzak is such an undervalued bowler in the world. Seriously, he is just as consistent in the ODIs as Shakib..and he also played a huge role in their two wins in World Cup 2007.



Anyway, where are the Bangladeshi supporters on this forum?? I know it can be a bit disheartening at times to be on this forum when all you read in discussions and debates is "Mr X's batting average is 52 (barring Bangladesh and Zimbabwe).. Well guess what..this is your chance to come back and laugh at the rest of us cricket snobs..

And let me tell you, if the team keeps performing like that...its only a matter of time when cricket snobs will feel embarrassed to use the term "barring Bangladesh"

 

[grecian]

Bangas are quite frustrating though, they definitely look better then they did, but generally they still manage to **** it up. Ashraful is still a stain on them, and hard to see them regularly take 20 wickets in a Test.

Still, I'm glad they're progressing, but at times it seems glacial.

Anyway, Booooooopara called up, Hildy robbed again

 

[G.I.Joe]

This is indeed a tremendous win...and the best thing about it..which is the strongest argument for their improvement is the fact that they won this without their best batsman firing.
While Tamim not scoring was disappointing..the fact that Bangladesh could post decent totals in both the games without him firing is surely a positive sign.. Siddiqui, Kayes and Raquibul stood up and delivered like a man... Well done..
Razzak is such an undervalued bowler in the world. Seriously, he is just as consistent in the ODIs as Shakib..and he also played a huge role in their two wins in World Cup 2007.



Anyway, where are the Bangladeshi supporters on this forum?? I know it can be a bit disheartening at times to be on this forum when all you read in discussions and debates is "Mr X's batting average is 52 (barring Bangladesh and Zimbabwe).. Well guess what..this is your chance to come back and laugh at the rest of us cricket snobs..

And let me tell you, if the team keeps performing like that...its only a matter of time when cricket snobs will feel embarrassed to use the term "barring Bangladesh"

England didn't even have their best batsman playing!

 

[Black_Warrior]

^ huh? I was talking about Bangladesh not England..

 

[G.I.Joe]

I know, just pointing out that England were handicapped to a greater extent, and so Bangladesh winning despite their best batsman not firing isn't quite the strongest argument for their improvement.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Right..but I was talking specifically about the Bangladesh posting decent totals like 250 and 236 without Tamim Iqbal's contribution..I was talking about Siddiqui, Raquibul and Kayes stepping up.

This has very little to do with Kevin Pieterson not playing unless you're suggesting Pieterson as a bowler could have prevented Bangladeshi batsmen from scoring runs.

 

[Jarquis]

Swann definitely could've.

 

[fredfertang]

I think part of the reason Bangladesh have struggled is the lack of a top class player to take the pressure off their lesser players - for a time it looked like Bashar and Ashraful might come through but they didn't - Now I think Tamim might well be their Aravinda/Andy Flower and the fact that others stepped up in these two games is, imo, some evidence of that - Tamim is due a score tomorrow - if he comes off then England will have to play at their very best to win

 

[Black_Warrior]

Swann definitely could've.

Oh man..not another could've...

Pakistan could have beaten Australia if they had a different wicket keeper.

Surely you have seen enough cricket to realize that there is a could've and should've to every outcome of a cricket match??

If you think Bangladesh are **** side who have not improved at all..thats fine...please put forward a different argument though..not a 'could've and 'should've.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Okay, here's a 'could've-should've'

If Bangladesh are definitely improving, they could've and should've started winning more than the one or two usual matches per year they always do

 

[Scaly piscine]

I think part of the reason Bangladesh have struggled is the lack of a top class player to take the pressure off their lesser players - for a time it looked like Bashar and Ashraful might come through but they didn't - Now I think Tamim might well be their Aravinda/Andy Flower and the fact that others stepped up in these two games is, imo, some evidence of that - Tamim is due a score tomorrow - if he comes off then England will have to play at their very best to win

It's like that for any team in ODI cricket in some ways. Teams needs a player to bat around, it makes a huge difference if one player gets a century instead of the usual 30-60 cobblers that English batsmen in particular manage. In a good team any of the top six or seven are capable of getting that century (at a decent enough rate) that takes a decent score into a match-winning one.

 

[Jarquis]

Oh man..not another could've...

Pakistan could have beaten Australia if they had a different wicket keeper.

Surely you have seen enough cricket to realize that there is a could've and should've to every outcome of a cricket match??

If you think Bangladesh are **** side who have not improved at all..thats fine...please put forward a different argument though..not a 'could've and 'should've.

Hahaha. I think they're improving I never said otherwise.
And you were the one who introduced the "could have" argument. Bitch please.

 

[Black_Warrior]

where?

 

[Jarquis]

where?

Right..but I was talking specifically about the Bangladesh posting decent totals like 250 and 236 without Tamim Iqbal's contribution..I was talking about Siddiqui, Raquibul and Kayes stepping up.

This has very little to do with Kevin Pieterson not playing unless you're suggesting Pieterson as a bowler could have prevented Bangladeshi batsmen from scoring runs.

There.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Right..and did you read the post it was in respone to? If you still think it was a could've argument..
Goodbye.

 

[Jarquis]

Right..and did you read the post it was in respone to? If you still think it was a could've argument..
Goodbye.

You were discussing the importance of Tamim not firing vs Pietersen not playing.
You then introduce the words "could have" with regards to limiting the Bangladeshis scoring runs.
To which I replied, that although Pietersen might not have

prevented Bangladeshi batsmen from scoring runs.

Swann almost definitely would have.

 

[Furball]

England didn't even have their best batsman playing!

Collingwood played.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Collingwood played.

England didn't even have their best batsman playing!

 

[Shri]

Stuart Broad played.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Stuart Broad played.

England didn't even have their best batsman playing!