Who is better, Neal or Sjögran?
Phil Neal leads with a GOAT score of 85.8 against 85.8 for Therese Sjögran — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
AthletesTeams
Neal vs Sjögran
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently scores Phil Neal and Therese Sjögran level at 85.8. Phil Neal leads on Honours, Dominance. Therese Sjögran leads on Statistics, Peak, Longevity.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →GOAT verdictgoatrank.world
NealWinner
85.8Neal wins: Dominance, Honours
Sjögran
85.8Sjögran wins: Peak, Longevity, Statistics
Candidates
Locked to FootballShareable URL · /compare/phil-neal-vs-therese-sjogran-v
Time range
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Category radar
Verdict
Weighted GOAT score
🏴 Phil Neal
85.8
Neal leads in 2 of 5 weighted categories.
1. Phil Neal
2. Therese Sjögran
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 season 5 · Form index per season1. 🏴 Phil Neal5 seasons played · career day 2,191342 goals
Setting the pace at this stage
2. 🇸🇪 Therese Sjögran5 seasons played · career day 1,825300 goals
-12.3% vs Neal at the same stage
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🏴 Neal | 0 | 0 | 0 | 54 | 186 | 600 |
| 🇸🇪 Sjögran | 0 | 0 | 52 | 108 | 300 | 612 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
Fan vote — data vs the people
GOAT Rank · the data
Neal85.8
Sjögran85.8
FAQ
Where does Sjögran beat Neal?
Sjögran scores higher on peak, statistics, longevity. Neal leads on dominance, honours.
How is the Neal vs Sjögran score calculated?
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Neal: 85.8, Sjögran: 85.8.
What do you think?
0 commentsMake your case for Neal vs Sjögran. 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.