H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Jarmila Wolfe vs Shahar Peer H2H: 1-1
Jarmila Wolfe and Shahar Peer are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Shahar Peer leads 1–0 on clay, while Jarmila Wolfe leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2009 Estoril quarterfinal 6-2 0-6 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.
AUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 9, 2009* | Estoril | WTA 250 | QF | Clay | Shahar Peer | 6-2 0-6 6-3 | Jarmila Wolfe | Match data |
| Oct 3, 2008* | Japan Open | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Jarmila Wolfe | 5-7 6-1 7-6(9) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jarmila Wolfe | #623 | #25 | 2,060 | 1,799 | 104 | 137 | 43.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 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 | Jarmila Wolfe | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2003 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #195 | 1,532 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #222 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2005 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #147 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #69 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2007 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #142 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2008 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #99 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2009 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #110 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2010 | 19–12 | 61.3% | #42 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2011 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #33 | 1,696 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2012 | 7–19 | 26.9% | #183 | 1,509 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2013 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #238 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2014 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #71 | 1,555 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2015 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #105 | 1,537 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2016 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #624 | 1,480 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |