H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Jelena Jankovic vs Shahar Peer H2H: 2-1
Jelena Jankovic holds a 2–1 lead over Shahar Peer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Jelena Jankovic leads 2–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2012 Doha third round 7-6(3) 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 41
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H
2
–
1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 16, 2012* | Doha | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 7-6(3) 6-2 | Jelena Jankovic | Match data |
| Mar 12, 2010* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R16 | Hard | Jelena Jankovic | 6-2 6-2 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Oct 5, 2007* | Stuttgart | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Jelena Jankovic | 4-6 6-1 6-3 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jelena Jankovic | #970 | #1 | 9,200 | 2,132 | 547 | 332 | 62.2% | 0 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 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 | Jelena Jankovic | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2001 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #364 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2002 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #196 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2003 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #85 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2004 | 27–25 | 51.9% | #28 | 1,754 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2005 | 36–29 | 55.4% | #22 | 1,732 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2006 | 45–28 | 61.6% | #12 | 1,915 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2007 | 73–26 | 73.7% | #3 | 1,966 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2008 | 63–18 | 77.8% | #1 | 2,087 | 0 | 9 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2009 | 42–19 | 68.9% | #8 | 1,948 | 0 | 11 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2010 | 35–22 | 61.4% | #8 | 1,794 | 0 | 12 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2011 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #14 | 1,804 | 0 | 12 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2012 | 31–27 | 53.4% | #22 | 1,737 | 0 | 12 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2013 | 46–21 | 68.7% | #8 | 1,918 | 0 | 13 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2014 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #15 | 1,795 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2015 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #21 | 1,851 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2016 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #54 | 1,738 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2017 | 6–19 | 24.0% | #158 | 1,576 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |