Who is better, de Silva or Inzamam?
Aravinda de Silva leads with a GOAT score of 88.5 against 88.4 for Inzamam-ul-Haq — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
AthletesTeams
de Silva vs Inzamam
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Aravinda de Silva above Inzamam-ul-Haq: 88.5 vs 88.4. Aravinda de Silva leads on Peak. Inzamam-ul-Haq leads on Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →GOAT verdictgoatrank.world
de SilvaWinner
88.5de Silva wins: Peak
Inzamam
88.4Inzamam wins: Statistics
Candidates
Locked to CricketShareable URL · /compare/aravinda-de-silva-vs-inzamam-ul-haq
Time range
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Category radar
Verdict
Weighted GOAT score
🇱🇰 Aravinda de Silva
88.5
de Silva leads in 4 of 5 weighted categories.
1. Aravinda de Silva
2. Inzamam-ul-Haq
Category breakdown
Season form · Form index per season
Career timeline · Form index per season
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
GOAT pace tracker
Career stage · GOAT pace
Through year 5 · Form index per season1. 🇵🇰 Inzamam-ul-Haq5 years played · career day 1,825195 runs
Setting the pace at this stage
2. 🇱🇰 Aravinda de Silva5 years played · career day 1,826148 runs
-24.1% vs Inzamam at the same stage
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇱🇰 de Silva | 0 | 0 | 18 | 43 | 108 | 335 |
| 🇵🇰 Inzamam | 0 | 0 | 20 | 62 | 195 | 386 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 year periods are measured against the same career window.
Fan vote — data vs the people
GOAT Rank · the data
de Silva88.5
Inzamam88.4
FAQ
Where does Inzamam beat de Silva?
Inzamam scores higher on statistics. de Silva leads on peak.
How is the de Silva vs Inzamam score calculated?
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. de Silva: 88.5, Inzamam: 88.4.
What do you think?
0 commentsMake your case for de Silva vs Inzamam. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.