Talk:Chuck Fleetwood-Smith

This is the removed section

 * He was left arm bowler many say the greatest left arm spinner, O`Reily said the most talented he saw he claims the ball Smith bowled Hammond with was the best ball he saw. He was surpringly sucsessfull in first class games his strike rate of 42 is better than O`Reily and Grimmets.In the 1934 Ashes series Australia were down 2-0 but Bradmon and Mccabe with the bat and Smith and O`Reily with the ball Australia managed a 3-2 win of the series, the fact  Smith missed the first two games helps one undersand how we won the series as we did not have his advantage in the first two tests, Smith took 19 wickets in three tests

Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, that section deserved to be struck, not least for getting the year of the Ashes series wrong! Also, it wasn't merely the return of F-S but some appalling luck with the weather (and injuries) that lost MCC that series - at 2-0 up and with Australia about 180-7 in the first innings of the Third Test, the Ashes were all but on the boat home before rain intervened.Captain Pedant 12:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Unusual trivia
I'm about 95% confident that Fleetwood-Smith started out as a right-arm bowler and had to learn all over again as a left-armer, a very strange circumstance that ought to be documented.Captain Pedant 12:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've referred to this as reference on Page 270 of The Wisden Book of Obituaries, quoted presumably from Wisden 1972. I've still to work out how to do one of those reference tags, so if anyone else knows how..... WillE 11:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The story that he broke his arm is not true, but is reprinted in some biographies. Wisden is not a good source as it also shows his year of birth as 1910 and not 1908. Fleetwood-Smith propagated a number of falsehoods about himself: the broken arm story, his DOB and that of his real surname, which was just plain Smith. Phanto282 08:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you definitely know which sources are true and which are porky pies? It's tempting to ask for citations for all the references to Chuck in Williams' 2000 book - it is, after all written 28 years after Chuck died, and 70 after he came to fame. WillE (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Note to the GA reviewer
While I have nominated this article, it was substantially written by a editor who has now retired. I feel this article is worthy of listing as a good article and have therefore nominated it. I have access to most of the sources used and a familiarity with the topic and as such should be able to address most concerns likely to be raised. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)