Who is better, Goolagong or Muster?
Evonne Goolagong Cawley leads with a GOAT score of 83.1 against 83.1 for Thomas Muster — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently scores Evonne Goolagong Cawley and Thomas Muster level at 83.1. Evonne Goolagong Cawley leads on Longevity, Honours. Thomas Muster leads on Peak, Dominance, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Goolagong wins: Longevity, Honours
Muster wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/evonne-goolagong-vs-thomas-muster
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Goolagong leads in 2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇦🇺 Goolagong | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 58 |
| 🇦🇹 Muster | 0 | 0 | 45 | 95 | 277 | 592 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | GoolagongRetired | MusterRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Grand Slam singles titles | 7 | — |
| Australian Open titles | 4 | — |
| Career titles | 86 | — |
| Grand Slam finals | 18 | — |
| Fed Cups | 3 | — |
| Wimbledon titles | 2 | — |
| Major singles titles | — | 1 |
| Career singles titles | — | 44 |
| Clay-court titles | — | 40 |
| Weeks at world number one | — | 6 |
| Consecutive clay wins in 1995 | — | 40 |
| Dominance w25% | 80 | 82 |
| Peak w20% | 88 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 82 | 76 |
| Honours w20% | 84 | 82 |
| Statistics w15% | 82 | 84 |
Evonne Goolagong Cawley leads with a GOAT score of 83.1 against 83.1 for Thomas Muster — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Muster scores higher on peak, dominance, statistics. Goolagong leads on honours, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Goolagong: 83.1, Muster: 83.1.
Make your case for Goolagong vs Muster. 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.