David Silva...

[TGR]

Re: Silva - best since Bell?

Bang on the money squirty.
Gerrard couldn't lace the boots of King Colin. Even in his prime Gerrard was simply nowhere near Bell on any level.

Using Gerrard as some sort of modern-day barometer for Bell is laughable. Gerrard - brilliant. At sliding on his knees. So's my 3 yr old daughter.

He maybe somethings ol' starfish but to deny his class is ignorant at best... he has carried that team for years and is one of the top 5 midfielders EVER to come out of England,without question.

Which tells you just how good Bell was. Genuinely, Bell was 2 or 3 levels above him at the very least!

 

[buzzer1]

Re: Silva - best since Bell?

Using Gerrard as some sort of modern-day barometer for Bell is laughable. Gerrard - brilliant. At sliding on his knees. So's my 3 yr old daughter.

He maybe somethings ol' starfish but to deny his class is ignorant at best... he has carried that team for years and is one of the top 5 midfielders EVER to come out of England,without question.

Which tells you just how good Bell was. Genuinely, Bell was 2 or 3 levels above him at the very least!

That's clearly not my argument, i was just stating to deny his class is hideous and laughable... i didn't see Bell play in the flesh but my time as a match going blue and seeing other players from the modern era Kinky was the best thus far and you would have to go some to get anywhere near him.

As an aside, Hoddle was a fantastic footballer but Gazza was the best maybe to come out of england in my lifetime..but still not a patch on kinkster lol.

 

[East Level 2]

Re: Silva - best since Bell?

And who knows what Bell would have achieved had it not been for that rag **** Buchan ending his career.
PJS always claimed we'd have won the league in 76-77 as Bell's presence would have been sufficient to generate the two points we'd have needed. - And I know that is a clear case of if my aunt had balls etc.

 

[sir baconface]

Re: Silva - best since Bell?

The problem with threads like these, generally comes with the older generation not wanting to let go of the thought/memories of Bell being our greatest player ever. I was never fortunate enough to see him play live, so it's virtually impossible for me to compare him with any of our current crop. I can only go off what people tell me about him, which while always being endless praise, I have to view some of that as a nostalgic view.

He was undoubtedly a very talented player, but for me, and this may be well wide of the mark, he was only "one of the greatest" among City fans. I've said it before on here, if we look back at lists of greatest players, European footballer of the year nominees and winners, World player of the year nominees and winners, he's nowhere to be seen. In future generations of football fans, when today's squad have long retired, I personally feel, that the likes of Yaya and Silva will have made a much more significant impression on football fans of all clubs, than Bell has done, which for me tells it's own story. They will most probably be remembered as two of the worlds elite footballers during their careers. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but they have both made shortlists for the Ballon d'or and been nominated for Fifa world team of the year?

I'm not using this as a stick to beat Bell with, just maybe to offer a more neutral view, rather than the cliched "blue tinted specs" As a previous poster said a few pages back "Colin Bell will always be our best player" if that is the mindset and it seems a commonly held view on here, how can it ever be fair to debate who is/was better player.

The view also that he was vastly superior to Gerrard is one I definitely struggle to comprehend, if it were to be true, he would surely receive much more praise and recognition than he does and before anyone tries angling towards a media bias, it would take one hell of biased view to erase a player of that caliber from the memories of ex players, pundits, journalists and fans, for him to not be up in all the lists ranked alongside the likes of Moore, Charlton, Banks, Greaves, Matthews, Gascoigne, Keegan etc....it certainly leaves me, a fan of the younger generation with an awful lot to ponder when considering our greatest ever player.

Just to be clear where I'm coming from, I stated earlier in the thread that Bell is my all-time favourite and Silva my second.

You've admitted it's impossible for you to make direct comparison. Like it or not, it's only us older Blues who can make a first-hand assessment. That said, I empathise with some of what you are saying while disputing other bits.

Some random observations:

1. Yes, we have to allow for the possibility of some blue-tinted, nostalgic element. But the comment "Colin Bell will always be our best player" is not representative. Many of us are open-minded to one of the current team taking over the King's mantle. That hasn't happened yet for one reason or another, e.g. longevity, consistency or all-round ability.

2. Bell was not actually recognised in his time as much as he might have been. I put this down partly to him not being on the much-lauded 1966 World Cup winning team owing to the intense competition.

3. Gerrard is definitely the modern player who springs to mind as a comparator. I differ with some here who downgrade Gerrard's achievements. He has been a hugely influential player for his club, not least in propelling them to European honours.

4. IMO both Bell and Gerrard's club contributions easily eclipsed those for their country.

5. Much as I love Silva, he has not been central to the Spain team's successes. His scoring record also lets him down at the highest level. His profile outside MCFC is probably no higher than was Colin's. Like Bell, though, we all know he is an absolute fcukin gem.

Hope this sheds some light.

Thanks for the reply.....

Just a few things I'm still uncertain on really, but I feel first it's important to make my stance clear, before anybody gets the wrong idea

I'm in no way trying to belittle or be disparaging towards Colin Bell as player, I've never seen him play and have only ever heard marvelous things about him. The issue I have and would maybe like to get a better understanding of is, if he was a genuine "great", why is there hardly any recognition in comparison to virtually all other "greats"? I've read ex pro's talk about him as being an outstanding player, but even so, if you have a look in books, online, TV programmes etc...you will do very well to find Bell featured in any of them at all. I've noticed that people like to use the saying "not a glamour club" or not one of the "medias darlings" but that is nonsense in my book. We're talking about our main man, during an era in which we won multiple trophies, including a league title and a European cup winners cup.

If we contrast that to today, off the back of our recent successes, many of our players are regarded among the best in the world, Kompany is widely regarded by the media and fans of virtually all clubs, as one of, if not the best CB in the world. Similar comments are made of Yaya and Aguero, as being some of the best in their positions.

Just to reiterate, I'm not questioning Bell's ability as a player, I haven't seen him play first hand, so it's impossible to do so, but unless there is a reasonable explanation, as to why he's received hardly any recognition or appreciation in comparison to other greats of his era, other than that of City fans who quite rightly love the main man of our most successful period to date, I find it hard to believe that players from our current crop don't eclipse him.

Just my opinion, so not meaning to rile anyone, but to only take second hand accounts of his abilities from his own admirers and fans, would be very foolish of me, so looking wider into the football world, for whatever reason, he falls short of that very top table of footballers, whereas, right now, I believe we have 3, maybe 4 who are there.

I understand your problem, mate, and certainly don't think you are being disrespectful to Bell. Can anyone else help to explain the specific point about why he didn't get greater recognition?

 

[Vienna_70]

Re: Silva - best since Bell?

When I lived in Stoke, I asked a friend, who used to watch football week in, week out, and had seen Bell play several times, what he thought of him.

His answer?

"World class."

 

[Troubadour]

Re: Silva - best since Bell?

You have to laugh at some of the posters on here at times...

'I never saw Colin Bell play' they say and then tell us why he wasn't as good as Silva or Stevie Starfish!

If you never saw Colin Bell play then you can't possibly comment.
So don't. You only make yourselves look silly.

 

[lancs blue]

Re: Silva - best since Bell?

Just to be clear where I'm coming from, I stated earlier in the thread that Bell is my all-time favourite and Silva my second.

You've admitted it's impossible for you to make direct comparison. Like it or not, it's only us older Blues who can make a first-hand assessment. That said, I empathise with some of what you are saying while disputing other bits.

Some random observations:

1. Yes, we have to allow for the possibility of some blue-tinted, nostalgic element. But the comment "Colin Bell will always be our best player" is not representative. Many of us are open-minded to one of the current team taking over the King's mantle. That hasn't happened yet for one reason or another, e.g. longevity, consistency or all-round ability.

2. Bell was not actually recognised in his time as much as he might have been. I put this down partly to him not being on the much-lauded 1966 World Cup winning team owing to the intense competition.

3. Gerrard is definitely the modern player who springs to mind as a comparator. I differ with some here who downgrade Gerrard's achievements. He has been a hugely influential player for his club, not least in propelling them to European honours.

4. IMO both Bell and Gerrard's club contributions easily eclipsed those for their country.

5. Much as I love Silva, he has not been central to the Spain team's successes. His scoring record also lets him down at the highest level. His profile outside MCFC is probably no higher than was Colin's. Like Bell, though, we all know he is an absolute fcukin gem.

Hope this sheds some light.

Thanks for the reply.....

Just a few things I'm still uncertain on really, but I feel first it's important to make my stance clear, before anybody gets the wrong idea

I'm in no way trying to belittle or be disparaging towards Colin Bell as player, I've never seen him play and have only ever heard marvelous things about him. The issue I have and would maybe like to get a better understanding of is, if he was a genuine "great", why is there hardly any recognition in comparison to virtually all other "greats"? I've read ex pro's talk about him as being an outstanding player, but even so, if you have a look in books, online, TV programmes etc...you will do very well to find Bell featured in any of them at all. I've noticed that people like to use the saying "not a glamour club" or not one of the "medias darlings" but that is nonsense in my book. We're talking about our main man, during an era in which we won multiple trophies, including a league title and a European cup winners cup.

If we contrast that to today, off the back of our recent successes, many of our players are regarded among the best in the world, Kompany is widely regarded by the media and fans of virtually all clubs, as one of, if not the best CB in the world. Similar comments are made of Yaya and Aguero, as being some of the best in their positions.

Just to reiterate, I'm not questioning Bell's ability as a player, I haven't seen him play first hand, so it's impossible to do so, but unless there is a reasonable explanation, as to why he's received hardly any recognition or appreciation in comparison to other greats of his era, other than that of City fans who quite rightly love the main man of our most successful period to date, I find it hard to believe that players from our current crop don't eclipse him.

Just my opinion, so not meaning to rile anyone, but to only take second hand accounts of his abilities from his own admirers and fans, would be very foolish of me, so looking wider into the football world, for whatever reason, he falls short of that very top table of footballers, whereas, right now, I believe we have 3, maybe 4 who are there.

I understand your problem, mate, and certainly don't think you are being disrespectful to Bell. Can anyone else help to explain the specific point about why he didn't get greater recognition?

As a player Bell was years ahead of his time, his fitness levels were something else entirely compared to other players of that era. But by the time of the 66 World Cup Bell hadn't even played in the top flight so to be clear he was never in contention for that competition. However his style didn't really fit in with Ramsey's England formation - the 4-4-2 formation which Ramsey used to good effect in the 66 World Cup and continued with for some years later comprised one defensive CM (Stiles in 66) and one attacking CM (Ticket tout) complemented by two hard working wide-midfielders (Ball and Peters) who covered both defensive and attacking phases. This left no real place for a box to box CM of Bell's type although his excellent fitness made him a useful member of the 1970 squad in Mexico. I believe that's one reason why he didn't receive as much acclaim and why it took him a while to be recognised as a valuable member of the England team.

He only really became firmly established in the England team towards the end of the Ramsey era despite making his debut in 1968 - between then and the end of 1971 he made 14 England appearances and between 1972 and the injury in late 1975 he made 34 appearances, despite City being far less successful and prominent as a club side than they had been in 1968-1971. When Revie took over as England manager he tended to look toward the "Leeds model" if you like, two more mobile and energetic CMs complemented by two more orthodox attacking wide players. Bell fitted this model perfectly and that's when he became a key player for England.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Re: Silva - best since Bell?

Just to be clear where I'm coming from, I stated earlier in the thread that Bell is my all-time favourite and Silva my second.

You've admitted it's impossible for you to make direct comparison. Like it or not, it's only us older Blues who can make a first-hand assessment. That said, I empathise with some of what you are saying while disputing other bits.

Some random observations:

1. Yes, we have to allow for the possibility of some blue-tinted, nostalgic element. But the comment "Colin Bell will always be our best player" is not representative. Many of us are open-minded to one of the current team taking over the King's mantle. That hasn't happened yet for one reason or another, e.g. longevity, consistency or all-round ability.

2. Bell was not actually recognised in his time as much as he might have been. I put this down partly to him not being on the much-lauded 1966 World Cup winning team owing to the intense competition.

3. Gerrard is definitely the modern player who springs to mind as a comparator. I differ with some here who downgrade Gerrard's achievements. He has been a hugely influential player for his club, not least in propelling them to European honours.

4. IMO both Bell and Gerrard's club contributions easily eclipsed those for their country.

5. Much as I love Silva, he has not been central to the Spain team's successes. His scoring record also lets him down at the highest level. His profile outside MCFC is probably no higher than was Colin's. Like Bell, though, we all know he is an absolute fcukin gem.

Hope this sheds some light.

Thanks for the reply.....

Just a few things I'm still uncertain on really, but I feel first it's important to make my stance clear, before anybody gets the wrong idea

I'm in no way trying to belittle or be disparaging towards Colin Bell as player, I've never seen him play and have only ever heard marvelous things about him. The issue I have and would maybe like to get a better understanding of is, if he was a genuine "great", why is there hardly any recognition in comparison to virtually all other "greats"? I've read ex pro's talk about him as being an outstanding player, but even so, if you have a look in books, online, TV programmes etc...you will do very well to find Bell featured in any of them at all. I've noticed that people like to use the saying "not a glamour club" or not one of the "medias darlings" but that is nonsense in my book. We're talking about our main man, during an era in which we won multiple trophies, including a league title and a European cup winners cup.

If we contrast that to today, off the back of our recent successes, many of our players are regarded among the best in the world, Kompany is widely regarded by the media and fans of virtually all clubs, as one of, if not the best CB in the world. Similar comments are made of Yaya and Aguero, as being some of the best in their positions.

Just to reiterate, I'm not questioning Bell's ability as a player, I haven't seen him play first hand, so it's impossible to do so, but unless there is a reasonable explanation, as to why he's received hardly any recognition or appreciation in comparison to other greats of his era, other than that of City fans who quite rightly love the main man of our most successful period to date, I find it hard to believe that players from our current crop don't eclipse him.

Just my opinion, so not meaning to rile anyone, but to only take second hand accounts of his abilities from his own admirers and fans, would be very foolish of me, so looking wider into the football world, for whatever reason, he falls short of that very top table of footballers, whereas, right now, I believe we have 3, maybe 4 who are there.

I understand your problem, mate, and certainly don't think you are being disrespectful to Bell. Can anyone else help to explain the specific point about why he didn't get greater recognition?

In fairness Bell is in the English Football Hall of Fame, as others have stated he is very well respected by fellow pro's of the day. He got 40 caps despite playing in the same position as possibly the best England player of the era (sorry) All City fans, and the vast majority of fans of The Shite who were around at the time say Bell was a great player, so I'm not sure what recognition he is looking for?

The only thing I'm surprised at is that he didn't win the Football Writers Player of the Year (PFA award didn't exist then). I don't think it's a "glamour club" thing as we had 2 winners in the 50s, and players from Derby and Stoke won it during Bell's era.

Tony Book was the joint winner in 1969, so the side was obviously well respected by the industry and not down to bias. Maybe Bell was very consistent without having a stand out season? Maybe some older posters could shed some light.

 

[Carver]

Re: Silva - best since Bell?

2. Bell was not actually recognised in his time as much as he might have been. I put this down partly to him not being on the much-lauded 1966 World Cup winning team owing to the intense competition.

I put it down to the fact that he was 20 years old and was playing second division football, with 3 seasons of second division football under his belt.

Alan Ball was considered to be young and as the youngest player, the baby of the squad. He was 21 years old at the time. Ball wasn't even close to being as young as Rooney and Owen, our youngest European Championship and World Cup final players at 18 years old.

 

[christened at st marks]

Re: Silva - best since Bell?

You have to laugh at some of the posters on here at times...

'I never saw Colin Bell play' they say and then tell us why he wasn't as good as Silva or Stevie Starfish!

If you never saw Colin Bell play then you can't possibly comment.
So don't. You only make yourselves look silly.

What pisses me off when we have gone his memory will be twisted, the best player I have seen or will see, strikers get all the glamour, what people don't get is he was the complete player, plenty of better strikers, wingers defenders but nobody as good at everything