Who is better, von Cramm or Errani?
Gottfried von Cramm leads with a GOAT score of 85.9 against 85.9 for Sara Errani — 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 Gottfried von Cramm and Sara Errani level at 85.9. Gottfried von Cramm leads on Dominance, Peak. Sara Errani leads on Longevity, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →von Cramm wins: Dominance, Peak
Errani wins: Longevity, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/gottfried-von-cramm-vs-sara-errani
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
von Cramm leads in 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇩🇪 von Cramm | 0 | 0 | 35 | 82 | 213 | 655 |
| 🇮🇹 Errani | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | von CrammRetired | ErraniActive |
|---|---|---|
| Major singles titles | 2 | — |
| Wimbledon finals | 3 | — |
| French Championships | 2 | — |
| Major doubles titles | 3 | — |
| Years in the world top ten | 8 | — |
| Grand Slam doubles titles | — | 5 |
| Grand Slam singles finals | — | 1 |
| Olympic golds | — | 1 |
| WTA singles titles | — | 10 |
| Fed Cup titles | — | 4 |
| Dominance w25% | 84 | 78 |
| Peak w20% | 92 | 90 |
| Longevity w20% | 84 | 92 |
| Honours w20% | 84 | 84 |
| Statistics w15% | 86 | 88 |
Gottfried von Cramm leads with a GOAT score of 85.9 against 85.9 for Sara Errani — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Errani scores higher on statistics, longevity. von Cramm leads on peak, dominance.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. von Cramm: 85.9, Errani: 85.9.
Make your case for von Cramm vs Errani. 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.