H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Ana Ivanovic vs Shahar Peer H2H: 1-2
Shahar Peer holds a 2–1 lead over Ana Ivanovic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Ana Ivanovic leads 1–0 on clay, while Shahar Peer leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Ana Ivanovic won the 2012 Roland Garros second round 6-2 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SRB
Age 38
Right-Handed
184 cm / 6'0"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2012* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Ana Ivanovic | 6-2 6-2 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Aug 5, 2010* | San Diego | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 7-6(3) 6-3 | Ana Ivanovic | Match data |
| Jun 23, 2010* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Shahar Peer | 6-3 6-4 | Ana Ivanovic | Match data |
* Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable.
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ana Ivanovic | #63 | #1 | 6,912 | 2,095 | 419 | 213 | 66.3% | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 15 |
| Shahar Peer | #1,185 | #11 | 3,410 | 1,966 | 268 | 204 | 56.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
Career Progression by Age
Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. GS and Titles are cumulative career totals through that season.
| Age | Ana Ivanovic | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2004 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #101 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2005 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #16 | 1,847 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2006 | 36–18 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #4 | 2,034 | 0 | 5 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2008 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #5 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2009 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #21 | 1,825 | 1 | 8 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2010 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #17 | 1,938 | 1 | 10 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2011 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #22 | 1,877 | 1 | 11 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2012 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #13 | 1,872 | 1 | 11 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2013 | 38–23 | 62.3% | #16 | 1,855 | 1 | 11 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2014 | 59–18 | 76.6% | #5 | 2,019 | 1 | 15 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2015 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #16 | 1,857 | 1 | 15 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2016 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #63 | 1,702 | 1 | 15 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |