Who is better, Fischer or Lorimer?
Nilla Fischer leads with a GOAT score of 82.8 against 82.8 for Peter Lorimer — 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 Nilla Fischer and Peter Lorimer level at 82.8. Nilla Fischer leads on Honours, Longevity. Peter Lorimer leads on Dominance, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Fischer wins: Longevity, Honours
Lorimer wins: Dominance, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/nilla-fischer-vs-peter-lorimer
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Fischer 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇸🇪 Fischer | 0 | 0 | 8 | 22 | 82 | 165 |
| 🏴 Lorimer | 0 | 0 | 0 | 56 | 270 | 612 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | FischerRetired | LorimerRetired |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden caps | 194 | — |
| Olympic silver medals | 2 | — |
| Bundesliga titles | 4 | — |
| Champions League finals | 3 | — |
| Swedish Footballer of the Year awards | 3 | — |
| Goals for Leeds United | — | 238 |
| League titles | — | 2 |
| FA Cups | — | 1 |
| Scotland caps | — | 21 |
| Appearances for Leeds United | — | 703 |
| Dominance w25% | 78 | 84 |
| Peak w20% | 84 | 84 |
| Longevity w20% | 90 | 86 |
| Honours w20% | 84 | 76 |
| Statistics w15% | 78 | 84 |
Nilla Fischer leads with a GOAT score of 82.8 against 82.8 for Peter Lorimer — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Lorimer scores higher on dominance, statistics. Fischer leads on honours, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Fischer: 82.8, Lorimer: 82.8.
Make your case for Fischer vs Lorimer. 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.