H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Barbora Strycova vs Shahar Peer H2H: 0-3
Shahar Peer holds a 3–0 lead over Barbora Strycova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Shahar Peer leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2009 Luxembourg third round 6-1 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CZE
Age 40
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H
0
–
3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 22, 2009* | Luxembourg | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-1 6-3 | Barbora Strycova | Match data |
| May 8, 2009* | Estoril | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Shahar Peer | 6-4 6-1 | Barbora Strycova | Match data |
| Jan 9, 2009* | Auckland | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-3 4-6 6-2 | Barbora Strycova | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barbora Strycova | #430 | #16 | 2,295 | 1,888 | 286 | 297 | 49.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 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 | Barbora Strycova | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #142 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2004 | 14–15 | 48.3% | #57 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2005 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #137 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #168 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2007 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #151 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2008 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #75 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2009 | 13–20 | 39.4% | #66 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2010 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #67 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2011 | 24–26 | 48.0% | #44 | 1,631 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2012 | 13–21 | 38.2% | #89 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2013 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #94 | 1,584 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2014 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #25 | 1,750 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2015 | 31–26 | 54.4% | #42 | 1,710 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2016 | 35–23 | 60.3% | #20 | 1,791 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2017 | 42–24 | 63.6% | #23 | 1,868 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2018 | 23–22 | 51.1% | #33 | 1,765 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2019 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #33 | 1,713 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2020 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #37 | 1,680 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2021 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #340 | 1,650 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2023 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #430 | 1,602 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |