Who is better, Goswami or Smith?
Jhulan Goswami leads with a GOAT score of 85.6 against 85.6 for Steve Smith — 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 Jhulan Goswami and Steve Smith level at 85.6. Jhulan Goswami leads on Longevity. Steve Smith leads on Peak, Dominance, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Goswami wins: Longevity
Smith wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/jhulan-goswami-vs-steve-smith
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Goswami 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇮🇳 Goswami | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 65 | 141 |
| 🇦🇺 Smith | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 270 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 year periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | GoswamiRetired | SmithActive |
|---|---|---|
| ODI wickets | 255 | — |
| International wickets | 353 | — |
| ODI average | 22 | — |
| World Cup finals | 2 | — |
| ICC Player of the Year | 1 | — |
| Years at international level | 20 | — |
| Test runs | — | 10,000 |
| Test centuries | — | 36 |
| Test average | — | 56 |
| World Test Championships | — | 1 |
| World Cups | — | 1 |
| ICC Cricketer of the Year | — | 2 |
| Dominance w25% | 82 | 84 |
| Peak w20% | 86 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 92 | 82 |
| Honours w20% | 80 | 80 |
| Statistics w15% | 90 | 92 |
Jhulan Goswami leads with a GOAT score of 85.6 against 85.6 for Steve Smith — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Smith scores higher on peak, dominance, statistics. Goswami leads on longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Goswami: 85.6, Smith: 85.6.
Make your case for Goswami vs Smith. 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.