Who is better, Bradman or Collingwood?
Don Bradman leads with a GOAT score of 96.8 against 85.8 for Paul Collingwood — a gap of 11.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Don Bradman above Paul Collingwood: 96.8 vs 85.8. Don Bradman leads on Dominance, Peak, Honours. Paul Collingwood leads on Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Bradman wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours, Statistics
Collingwood wins: Longevity
Shareable URL · /compare/don-bradman-vs-paul-collingwood
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Bradman leads in 4 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇦🇺 Bradman | 0 | 0 | 0 | 66 | 395 | 803 |
| 🇬🇧 Collingwood | 0 | 0 | 45 | 94 | 206 | 562 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 year periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | BradmanRetired | CollingwoodRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Test batting average | 99.94 | — |
| Test centuries | 29 | 10 |
| Test runs | 6,996 | 4,259 |
| Test double centuries | 12 | — |
| Ashes series won as captain | 4 | — |
| World Twenty20 titles as captain | — | 1 |
| One-day international runs | — | 5,092 |
| International caps | — | 264 |
| Dominance w25% | 100 | 78 |
| Peak w20% | 100 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 88 | 90 |
| Honours w20% | 96 | 86 |
| Statistics w15% | 100 | 90 |
Don Bradman leads with a GOAT score of 96.8 against 85.8 for Paul Collingwood — a gap of 11.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Collingwood scores higher on longevity. Bradman leads on peak, dominance, honours, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Bradman: 96.8, Collingwood: 85.8.
Make your case for Bradman vs Collingwood. 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.