H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Carla Suárez Navarro vs Shahar Peer H2H: 0-3
Shahar Peer holds a 3–0 lead over Carla Suárez Navarro in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Shahar Peer leads 3–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2010 Hobart quarterfinal 4-6 7-6(4) 7-5.
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 37
Right-Handed
162 cm / 5'4"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2010* | Hobart | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Shahar Peer | 4-6 7-6(4) 7-5 | Carla Suárez Navarro | Match data |
| Oct 23, 2009* | Luxembourg | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 3-6 6-3 6-1 | Carla Suárez Navarro | Match data |
| Sep 3, 2009* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-2 6-0 | Carla Suárez Navarro | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carla Suárez Navarro | #342 | #6 | 4,015 | 2,022 | 339 | 247 | 57.8% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 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 | Carla Suárez Navarro | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2008 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #49 | 1,567 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2009 | 29–25 | 53.7% | #33 | 1,648 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2010 | 21–14 | 60.0% | #57 | 1,696 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2011 | 15–12 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,682 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2012 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #34 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2013 | 41–26 | 61.2% | #17 | 1,812 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2014 | 50–25 | 66.7% | #17 | 1,835 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2015 | 41–25 | 62.1% | #13 | 1,787 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2016 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #12 | 1,812 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2017 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #40 | 1,749 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2018 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #23 | 1,826 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2019 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,742 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2020 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #84 | 1,717 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2021 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #342 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |