Who is better, Agnew or Asif?
Jonathan Agnew leads with a GOAT score of 76.5 against 74.8 for Mohammad Asif — a gap of 1.7 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
AthletesTeams
Agnew vs Asif
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Jonathan Agnew above Mohammad Asif: 76.5 vs 74.8. Jonathan Agnew leads on Longevity, Honours. Mohammad Asif leads on Peak, Statistics, Dominance.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →GOAT verdictgoatrank.world
AgnewWinner
76.5Agnew wins: Longevity, Honours
Asif
74.8Asif wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Candidates
Locked to CricketShareable URL · /compare/jonathan-agnew-vs-mohammad-asif
Time range
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Category radar
Verdict
Weighted GOAT score
🏴 Jonathan Agnew
76.5
Agnew leads in 2 of 5 weighted categories.
1. Jonathan Agnew
2. Mohammad Asif
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. 🏴 Jonathan Agnew5 years played · career day 1,825298 runs
Setting the pace at this stage
2. 🇵🇰 Mohammad Asif5 years played · career day 1,82594 runs
-68.5% vs Agnew at the same stage
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🏴 Agnew | 0 | 0 | 50 | 105 | 298 | 622 |
| 🇵🇰 Asif | 0 | 0 | 4 | 30 | 94 | 106 |
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
Agnew76.5
Asif74.8
FAQ
Where does Asif beat Agnew?
Asif scores higher on peak, dominance, statistics. Agnew leads on honours, longevity.
How is the Agnew vs Asif score calculated?
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Agnew: 76.5, Asif: 74.8.
What do you think?
0 commentsMake your case for Agnew vs Asif. 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.