Who is better, Mushtaq or Collingwood?
Mushtaq Ahmed leads with a GOAT score of 85.8 against 85.8 for Paul Collingwood — 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 Mushtaq Ahmed and Paul Collingwood level at 85.8. Mushtaq Ahmed leads on Dominance, Peak, Statistics. Paul Collingwood leads on Longevity, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Mushtaq wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Collingwood wins: Longevity, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/mushtaq-ahmed-vs-paul-collingwood
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Mushtaq 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇵🇰 Mushtaq | 0 | 0 | 45 | 96 | 286 | 626 |
| 🇬🇧 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 | MushtaqRetired | CollingwoodRetired |
|---|---|---|
| World Cup titles | 1 | — |
| Test wickets | 185 | — |
| First-class wickets | 1,407 | — |
| One-day international wickets | 161 | — |
| Ten-wicket Test matches | 3 | — |
| World Twenty20 titles as captain | — | 1 |
| Test runs | — | 4,259 |
| One-day international runs | — | 5,092 |
| Test centuries | — | 10 |
| International caps | — | 264 |
| Dominance w25% | 80 | 78 |
| Peak w20% | 90 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 86 | 90 |
| Honours w20% | 84 | 86 |
| Statistics w15% | 92 | 90 |
Mushtaq Ahmed leads with a GOAT score of 85.8 against 85.8 for Paul Collingwood — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Collingwood scores higher on honours, longevity. Mushtaq leads on peak, dominance, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Mushtaq: 85.8, Collingwood: 85.8.
Make your case for Mushtaq 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.