Who is better, Shaheen or Dollery?
Tom Dollery leads with a GOAT score of 84.1 against 84.0 for Shaheen Shah Afridi — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Tom Dollery above Shaheen Shah Afridi: 84.1 vs 84.0. Tom Dollery leads on Longevity. Shaheen Shah Afridi leads on Dominance, Peak, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Dollery wins: Longevity
Shaheen wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/shaheen-afridi-vs-tom-dollery
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Dollery leads in 2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇵🇰 Shaheen | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 180 | 386 |
| 🇬🇧 Dollery | 0 | 0 | 45 | 94 | 262 | 538 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 year periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | ShaheenActive · Lahore Qalandars | DolleryRetired |
|---|---|---|
| ICC Cricketer of the Year awards | 1 | — |
| Test wickets | 120 | — |
| ODI wickets | 130 | — |
| T20I wickets | 100 | — |
| Champions Trophy titles | 1 | — |
| First-class runs | — | 24,413 |
| First-class centuries | — | 50 |
| County championships as captain | — | 1 |
| Tests played | — | 4 |
| Seasons played | — | 21 |
| Dominance w25% | 84 | 78 |
| Peak w20% | 94 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 72 | 88 |
| Honours w20% | 80 | 78 |
| Statistics w15% | 92 | 92 |
Tom Dollery leads with a GOAT score of 84.1 against 84.0 for Shaheen Shah Afridi — a gap of 0.1 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shaheen scores higher on peak, dominance, honours. Dollery leads on longevity.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Shaheen: 84.0, Dollery: 84.1.
Make your case for Shaheen vs Dollery. 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.