Who is better, Collingwood or Benaud?
Paul Collingwood leads with a GOAT score of 85.8 against 85.8 for Richie Benaud — 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 Paul Collingwood and Richie Benaud level at 85.8. Paul Collingwood leads on Longevity, Statistics. Richie Benaud leads on Dominance, Peak.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Collingwood wins: Longevity, Statistics
Benaud wins: Dominance, Peak
Shareable URL · /compare/paul-collingwood-vs-richie-benaud
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Collingwood 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇬🇧 Collingwood | 0 | 0 | 45 | 94 | 206 | 562 |
| 🇦🇺 Benaud | 0 | 0 | 35 | 78 | 186 | 590 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 year periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | CollingwoodRetired | BenaudRetired |
|---|---|---|
| World Twenty20 titles as captain | 1 | — |
| Test runs | 4,259 | 2,201 |
| One-day international runs | 5,092 | — |
| Test centuries | 10 | — |
| International caps | 264 | — |
| Test wickets | — | 248 |
| Tests as captain | — | 28 |
| Series lost as captain | — | 0 |
| Five-wicket hauls | — | 16 |
| Dominance w25% | 78 | 84 |
| Peak w20% | 88 | 92 |
| Longevity w20% | 90 | 80 |
| Honours w20% | 86 | 86 |
| Statistics w15% | 90 | 88 |
Paul Collingwood leads with a GOAT score of 85.8 against 85.8 for Richie Benaud — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Benaud scores higher on peak, dominance. Collingwood leads on statistics, longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Collingwood: 85.8, Benaud: 85.8.
Make your case for Collingwood vs Benaud. 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.