Freddie Flintoff retirement from Test cricket has launched a stream of articles arguing whether he was “great” or merely a very good player. In the same week a paper from [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6812557.ece Stanford University] reinforces the oft quoted view that men can’t multitask but intriguingly states that women can’t either!

So what can cricket teach us about business?

All rounders are very rare. As rare as hen’s teeth it appears. The classic definition of an all rounder is one who is worth his place in the team as a batsman and as a bowler. Was Freddie good enough to rank amongst England’s finest all rounders? Would he make the top three?

First place in English all rounders has to go to Ian Botham, the man redefined the game. Anyone around in 1981 couldn’t help but be stirred by his accomplishments. He stayed too long, in his last 16 matches he averaged a very poor 19 whilst batting and his wickets cost him 49 apiece. Nevertheless a batting average of 33 and a bowling average of 28 are very impressive.

In terms of “positive differential” between batting and bowling averages Tony Grieg out performs Botham. Grieg delivered a batting average of 40 and a bowling average of 32 without ever hitting Botham’s stratospheric heights.

To find Flintoff’s main contender for a top three position next to Botham and Greig we need to go back some considerable time. The “joke” answer at the turn of the 20th century as to who was the best all rounder in the world was “I don’t know but he bats right handed, bowls left handed and comes from Kirkheaton.” The reference was to two players, Wilfred Rhodes and George Hirst, with remarkable records in county cricket. At the highest level of cricket Wilfred Rhodes is a worthy contender for a top three place with a batting average of 30 and a bowling average of 26. But a closer inspection of Rhodes’s record in Test cricket starts to tell a different story. Famously he started his Test career batting at number 11 and ended opening. His bowling went in the opposite direction taking 94 wickets in his first 25 matches and only 33 wickets in his final 33 matches. In Test cricket Wilfred Rhodes was not really an all rounder.

If Wilfred Rhodes wasn’t really an all rounder then Freddie can sneak into the top three. Although his overall averages (Batting 32 and Bowling 33) show a negative differential he was a slow starter in Test cricket. His last 45 matches produced a batting average of 34 and a bowling average of 29.

But if Rhodes is being excluded we ought to go back to the original premise of an all rounder being someone worth their place as a batsman and a bowler to see if anyone can claim to be a true all rounder. To determine this a standard is needed. There are flaws with averages (as shown by the Rhodes case) but it seems the best we have.

So what is the “standard” to determine whether someone is worth their place as a batsman or bowler alone? Well the batting average is relatively straightforward. Most would accept that an average of 40 is the benchmark. In bowling there is no such agreement but a figure of 30 seems defendable.

So the measure of an all rounder is career averages at Test cricket at 40 or above for batting and 30 or below for bowling. And how many are there?

None!

51 people have completed the Test double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets according to [http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282786.html Cricinfo] but none with a career average of over 40 for batting and under 30 for bowling. In fact the majority of those 51 are “bowling” all rounders with 28 having a bowling average of under 30. Only three, Sobers, Kallis and Grieg, have a batting average over 40. Sobers (57,34) and Kallis (54,31) are the stand out performers but no-one meets the gold standard.

There has never been a true all rounder.

The Stanford University research detailed in the great [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6812557.ece Finkelstein] column explored whether people could really multitask. They assessed levels of performance whilst people were doing multiple tasks and found that doing more than one activity led to lower levels of performance. That’s not to say people don’t multitask, clearly they do, in just the same way as many cricketers both bat and bowl. It’s just that they don’t reach optimum performance when they multitask. Men have long accepted this truth, women may have to reassess their performance levels.

What are the consequences of this for business? Quite a lot. A standard measure by HR would be how many people are multiskilled. The greater the number of people who can be shown to be able to undertake a range of jobs the bigger the “tick in the box.” But is this right? Whilst it may provide cover and be better for capacity management does it just lead to sub optimum performance?

The retirement of Flintoff has ignited a debate about the future balance of the England team. Can Broad step up to number 7? Are 4 bowlers enough to get 20 wickets? What we can be sure is that the answer definitely isn’t a team of Flintoffs, great to watch though he was. In just the same way perhaps you don’t want a team of all rounders in your business.