H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Anabel Medina Garrigues vs Shahar Peer H2H: 2-0
Anabel Medina Garrigues holds a 2–0 lead over Shahar Peer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Anabel Medina Garrigues leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anabel Medina Garrigues won the 2011 Miami 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.
ESP
Age 43
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 23, 2011* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Anabel Medina Garrigues | 6-2 6-2 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Jan 14, 2006* | Canberra | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Anabel Medina Garrigues | 6-7(4) 7-5 6-4 | Shahar Peer | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anabel Medina Garrigues | #741 | #16 | 2,505 | 1,852 | 310 | 275 | 53.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| 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 | Anabel Medina Garrigues | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2000 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #109 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2001 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #66 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2002 | 9–3 | 75.0% | #116 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2003 | 13–12 | 52.0% | #71 | 1,613 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2004 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #39 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2005 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #33 | 1,747 | 0 | 4 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2006 | 34–24 | 58.6% | #27 | 1,690 | 0 | 6 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2007 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #34 | 1,694 | 0 | 7 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2008 | 41–24 | 63.1% | #22 | 1,833 | 0 | 8 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2009 | 33–26 | 55.9% | #27 | 1,683 | 0 | 9 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2010 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #71 | 1,565 | 0 | 9 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2011 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #27 | 1,774 | 0 | 11 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2012 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #50 | 1,629 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2013 | 8–19 | 29.6% | #100 | 1,553 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2014 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #452 | 1,501 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |