Current player most like Colin Bell

[BringBackSwales]

I feel compelled to introduce a little balance.

If Colin was the complete midfielder, in a footballing landscape that was a lot more even and meritorious than it is today, how come he didn't drive City to more trophies than he did? How come 'his' teams never featured prominently in domestic cup competition when he was at his peak? How come he never carried England to World Cup glory in 1970, or qualification in 1974.

I'm not saying he wasn't a great footballer, but did he ever take any team beneath his feet into another level, which is surely the mark of a truly great player.

If anyone wants to put a reasoned counter-argument, I'm all ears.

Are you kidding..!!
Fa cup
League cup
ECWC..
Div 1 title
and on the England remark..
Because England weren't successful in his playing career meaning " he couldn't have been that good if we didn't win anything..!!!
You could make that accusation to every great player over the last 50 years..

He was the dogs bollocks mate..
Blues who have seen him play in the flesh would never need to ask any of them questions you have...
he had the presence of yaya
The touch of silva
an engine like I've never seen since remembering the pitches back then weren't like these carpets they play on today..
and had a eye for goal like lampard..

Your reference about the titles he won also applies to Tony Coleman.

I did see him play, although admittedly it was after his prowess was so cruelly blunted by Martin Buchan. I will say, however, that I never saw Maradona or Pele play in the flesh; does that mean I'm not entitled to an opinion on them? My questions are perfectly valid ones. Following our title win in '68 up to his injury, City, with him as its beating heart, finished 13th, 10th, 11th, 4th, 11th, 14th and 8th in the First Division. Those are cold hard facts and lead me to ask the perfectly legitimate question as to whether he was the truly great player that people are suggesting.

In saying that I am not suggesting that he was anything other than an incredible footballer who had so many attributes as a player, especially the knack of scoring. He was an astonishing athlete who would effortlessly slip into the modern game. He would fit perfectly into our current midfield and if he were in our squad today would be one of the first names on the team sheet. I am not trying to denigrate his footballing ability.

What I am saying is that truly great players make those around them add up to more than the sum of their parts, as Maradona did in the 1986 World Cup, for example. They grab vital games by the scruff of the neck and carry their team to improbable victory. These are qualities that transcend mere footballing talent, but also involve sheer weight of personality and an overwhelming will to win. It is right to say, as he has been mentioned on this thread, that at his peak Steven Gerrard had those qualities, although he wasn't as talented a footballer as Bell.

Can anyone say, looking at those league finishes above, that Colin Bell made the City team of the 1970's, with all the talent it contained, add up to more than the sum of its parts?

I'm going to say no to that and for that reason I'm going to reserve the right to claim that he fell just short of being the complete footballer, City legend though he is.

so you are basically judging him on the basis of having seen him play on 1 leg

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Are you kidding..!!
Fa cup
League cup
ECWC..
Div 1 title
and on the England remark..
Because England weren't successful in his playing career meaning " he couldn't have been that good if we didn't win anything..!!!
You could make that accusation to every great player over the last 50 years..

He was the dogs bollocks mate..
Blues who have seen him play in the flesh would never need to ask any of them questions you have...
he had the presence of yaya
The touch of silva
an engine like I've never seen since remembering the pitches back then weren't like these carpets they play on today..
and had a eye for goal like lampard..

Your reference about the titles he won also applies to Tony Coleman.

I did see him play, although admittedly it was after his prowess was so cruelly blunted by Martin Buchan. I will say, however, that I never saw Maradona or Pele play in the flesh; does that mean I'm not entitled to an opinion on them? My questions are perfectly valid ones. Following our title win in '68 up to his injury, City, with him as its beating heart, finished 13th, 10th, 11th, 4th, 11th, 14th and 8th in the First Division. Those are cold hard facts and lead me to ask the perfectly legitimate question as to whether he was the truly great player that people are suggesting.

In saying that I am not suggesting that he was anything other than an incredible footballer who had so many attributes as a player, especially the knack of scoring. He was an astonishing athlete who would effortlessly slip into the modern game. He would fit perfectly into our current midfield and if he were in our squad today would be one of the first names on the team sheet. I am not trying to denigrate his footballing ability.

What I am saying is that truly great players make those around them add up to more than the sum of their parts, as Maradona did in the 1986 World Cup, for example. They grab vital games by the scruff of the neck and carry their team to improbable victory. These are qualities that transcend mere footballing talent, but also involve sheer weight of personality and an overwhelming will to win. It is right to say, as he has been mentioned on this thread, that at his peak Steven Gerrard had those qualities, although he wasn't as talented a footballer as Bell.

Can anyone say, looking at those league finishes above, that Colin Bell made the City team of the 1970's, with all the talent it contained, add up to more than the sum of its parts?

I'm going to say no to that and for that reason I'm going to reserve the right to claim that he fell just short of being the complete footballer, City legend though he is.

so you are basically judging him on the basis of having seen him play on 1 leg

I'm judging him based on the repeated mid-table finishes with him at the heart of our midfield. I consciously picked the seasons 1969-1975 to illustrate my point, not the period when he was, as you say, 'playing on 1 leg'. It's a perfectly valid point to advance and one you, or anyone else, have conspicuously failed to properly address.

Are you suggesting that someone who didn't see him play before he was injured has to blindly assume he was one of the greatest players of all time because supporters of the club he played for say he is? I'm a little more independent of mind than to slavishly follow what fellow blues say without questioning it. Sorry if that imposes itself onto your opinions of him.

As I say, he was an incredible player, but those league finishes bring into question his true greatness. If he'd been the player that some people suggest, we'd have finished higher in Division 1more frequently than we did in that period. Look at a Liverpool this season, compared to last, for example, to see what a difference a great player can make to a team: that is what I am talking about.

 

[harry the plumber]

Your reference about the titles he won also applies to Tony Coleman.

I did see him play, although admittedly it was after his prowess was so cruelly blunted by Martin Buchan. I will say, however, that I never saw Maradona or Pele play in the flesh; does that mean I'm not entitled to an opinion on them? My questions are perfectly valid ones. Following our title win in '68 up to his injury, City, with him as its beating heart, finished 13th, 10th, 11th, 4th, 11th, 14th and 8th in the First Division. Those are cold hard facts and lead me to ask the perfectly legitimate question as to whether he was the truly great player that people are suggesting.

In saying that I am not suggesting that he was anything other than an incredible footballer who had so many attributes as a player, especially the knack of scoring. He was an astonishing athlete who would effortlessly slip into the modern game. He would fit perfectly into our current midfield and if he were in our squad today would be one of the first names on the team sheet. I am not trying to denigrate his footballing ability.

What I am saying is that truly great players make those around them add up to more than the sum of their parts, as Maradona did in the 1986 World Cup, for example. They grab vital games by the scruff of the neck and carry their team to improbable victory. These are qualities that transcend mere footballing talent, but also involve sheer weight of personality and an overwhelming will to win. It is right to say, as he has been mentioned on this thread, that at his peak Steven Gerrard had those qualities, although he wasn't as talented a footballer as Bell.

Can anyone say, looking at those league finishes above, that Colin Bell made the City team of the 1970's, with all the talent it contained, add up to more than the sum of its parts?

I'm going to say no to that and for that reason I'm going to reserve the right to claim that he fell just short of being the complete footballer, City legend though he is.

so you are basically judging him on the basis of having seen him play on 1 leg

I'm judging him based on the repeated mid-table finishes with him at the heart of our midfield. I consciously picked the seasons 1969-1975 to illustrate my point, not the period when he was, as you say, 'playing on 1 leg'. It's a perfectly valid point to advance and one you, or anyone else, have conspicuously failed to properly address.

Are you suggesting that someone who didn't see him play before he was injured has to blindly assume he was one of the greatest players of all time because supporters of the club he played for say he is? I'm a little more independent of mind than to slavishly follow what fellow blues say without questioning it. Sorry if that imposes itself onto your opinions of him.

As I say, he was an incredible player, but those league finishes bring into question his true greatness. If he'd been the player that some people suggest, we'd have finished higher in Division 1more frequently than we did in that period. Look at a Liverpool this season, compared to last, for example, to see what a difference a great player can make to a team: that is what I am talking about.

How about sir tom finney saying colin was as good as he`d ever seen. Never been a City fan and an half decent player himself.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

And you are saying if a colin bell in his prime would have been in that team we would have been relegated?. Or would he have been a good enough player to make the difference between staying up or going down.
My point is that Colin Bell did lift players around him to a different level.

Perhaps I should have worded my original post slightly differently. I don't doubt he lifted those around him to a discernible and worthwhile extent, he was a fantastic player, but not sufficiently for City to dominate the league on a regular enough basis. If he did carry those around him it was to an average finish of tenth in seven seasons; his prime as a player.

No I don't think we'd have gone down in '83 with Bell in his prime at the centre of the midfield, especially as we scored a little over a goal a game that season. That, however, doesn't alter my point, which is those league finishes do not point to a true great of the game. Football is a team game, but the margins between success and failure can be quite narrow. Truly great players make that difference with a greater degree of frequency that City displayed, especially in the league, between 1969 and 1975.

The facts are the facts and those league finishes demand a better answer than people dismissing my opinion because I didn't see him play in his prime (not you, Harry). It's like saying because you didn't live through WW2 you're not allowed to have an opinion on Hitler.

 

[aguero93:20]

From what I've seen and heard of Bell, Vidal is probably the closest in style around now, although CB was well before my time.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

How about sir tom finney saying colin was as good as he`d ever seen. Never been a City fan and an half decent player himself.

Sir Tom Finney was a good judge of a player and a very fair man too, so I'm not going to dismiss what he said out of hand. I think I've spoken in sufficiently glowing terms about Bell's abilities to make people realise that I thought he was an incredible player. George Best too really rated Colin, including him in his best XI once iirc.

None of that alters what I have said and my opinion of the question mark that hangs over his place as a true great of the game, rather than 'merely' a brilliant footballer.

 

[christened at st marks]

Imagine Yaya with the engine of Milner.

and could tackle like Pab Zab

 

[christened at st marks]

so you are basically judging him on the basis of having seen him play on 1 leg

I'm judging him based on the repeated mid-table finishes with him at the heart of our midfield. I consciously picked the seasons 1969-1975 to illustrate my point, not the period when he was, as you say, 'playing on 1 leg'. It's a perfectly valid point to advance and one you, or anyone else, have conspicuously failed to properly address.

Are you suggesting that someone who didn't see him play before he was injured has to blindly assume he was one of the greatest players of all time because supporters of the club he played for say he is? I'm a little more independent of mind than to slavishly follow what fellow blues say without questioning it. Sorry if that imposes itself onto your opinions of him.

As I say, he was an incredible player, but those league finishes bring into question his true greatness. If he'd been the player that some people suggest, we'd have finished higher in Division 1more frequently than we did in that period. Look at a Liverpool this season, compared to last, for example, to see what a difference a great player can make to a team: that is what I am talking about.

How about sir tom finney saying colin was as good as he`d ever seen. Never been a City fan and an half decent player himself.

I remember rags I new saying the same thing with Charlton Law and Best playing for them

 

[lancs blue]

How about sir tom finney saying colin was as good as he`d ever seen. Never been a City fan and an half decent player himself.

Sir Tom Finney was a good judge of a player and a very fair man too, so I'm not going to dismiss what he said out of hand. I think I've spoken in sufficiently glowing terms about Bell's abilities to make people realise that I thought he was an incredible player. George Best too really rated Colin, including him in his best XI once iirc.

None of that alters what I have said and my opinion of the question mark that hangs over his place as a true great of the game, rather than 'merely' a brilliant footballer.

Bobby Moore, England World Cup winning captain, generally acknowledged internationally as one of the finest half backs the world has seen, unarguably a great player, surely?

West Ham's league position in his peak years 63/64 to 70/71 when he turned 30 :-

14th, 9th, 12th, 16th, 12th, 8th, 17th, 20th.

So using your argument, why wasn't Moore able to drag West Ham out of mid-table obscurity during his time there?

I'll give you one clue which I think is relevant, the top flight was far more competitive in that era, take the period 65/66 to 71/72 inclusive, 7 seasons with 7 different clubs winning the title - Liverpool, Rags, City, Leeds, Everton, Arsenal, Derby. No chance of that happening in today's PL. There wasn't generally a fixed top 4, clubs moved up and down the table with a fair amount of regularity. What would happen at the Swamp now if the rags won the CL and then finished 11th the following season? That's where they finished in 68/69 the season after winning the European Cup and that was with the likes of Best, Law and Charlton at their peak.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Your reference about the titles he won also applies to Tony Coleman.

I did see him play, although admittedly it was after his prowess was so cruelly blunted by Martin Buchan. I will say, however, that I never saw Maradona or Pele play in the flesh; does that mean I'm not entitled to an opinion on them? My questions are perfectly valid ones. Following our title win in '68 up to his injury, City, with him as its beating heart, finished 13th, 10th, 11th, 4th, 11th, 14th and 8th in the First Division. Those are cold hard facts and lead me to ask the perfectly legitimate question as to whether he was the truly great player that people are suggesting.

In saying that I am not suggesting that he was anything other than an incredible footballer who had so many attributes as a player, especially the knack of scoring. He was an astonishing athlete who would effortlessly slip into the modern game. He would fit perfectly into our current midfield and if he were in our squad today would be one of the first names on the team sheet. I am not trying to denigrate his footballing ability.

What I am saying is that truly great players make those around them add up to more than the sum of their parts, as Maradona did in the 1986 World Cup, for example. They grab vital games by the scruff of the neck and carry their team to improbable victory. These are qualities that transcend mere footballing talent, but also involve sheer weight of personality and an overwhelming will to win. It is right to say, as he has been mentioned on this thread, that at his peak Steven Gerrard had those qualities, although he wasn't as talented a footballer as Bell.

Can anyone say, looking at those league finishes above, that Colin Bell made the City team of the 1970's, with all the talent it contained, add up to more than the sum of its parts?

I'm going to say no to that and for that reason I'm going to reserve the right to claim that he fell just short of being the complete footballer, City legend though he is.

so you are basically judging him on the basis of having seen him play on 1 leg

I'm judging him based on the repeated mid-table finishes with him at the heart of our midfield. I consciously picked the seasons 1969-1975 to illustrate my point, not the period when he was, as you say, 'playing on 1 leg'. It's a perfectly valid point to advance and one you, or anyone else, have conspicuously failed to properly address.

Are you suggesting that someone who didn't see him play before he was injured has to blindly assume he was one of the greatest players of all time because supporters of the club he played for say he is? I'm a little more independent of mind than to slavishly follow what fellow blues say without questioning it. Sorry if that imposes itself onto your opinions of him.

As I say, he was an incredible player, but those league finishes bring into question his true greatness. If he'd been the player that some people suggest, we'd have finished higher in Division 1more frequently than we did in that period. Look at a Liverpool this season, compared to last, for example, to see what a difference a great player can make to a team: that is what I am talking about.

Your argument is shit, as you never saw him play before serious injury ruined him. Your logic suggests bale was shit cos wales and spurs won nothing with him but now he is great cos he plays for real madrid, the player is the same, the team is better, 1 man cannot di the work of 11, although Colin came close. I would have loved to have seen Colin, David and Yaya in the same team, all 3 utterly brilliant, completely world class