H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:32 UTC
Karolina Pliskova vs Shahar Peer H2H: 2-0
Karolina Pliskova holds a 2–0 lead over Shahar Peer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Karolina Pliskova leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Karolina Pliskova won the 2014 Istanbul fourth round 6-2 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.
CZE
Age 34
Right-Handed
186 cm / 6'1"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 18, 2014* | Istanbul | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Karolina Pliskova | 6-2 7-5 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Apr 3, 2014* | Monterrey | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Karolina Pliskova | 6-3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Karolina Pliskova | #64 | #1 | 6,940 | 2,041 | 421 | 241 | 63.6% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 5 | 17 |
| 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 | Karolina Pliskova | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #736 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2008 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #465 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #221 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #212 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2011 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #145 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2012 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #118 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2013 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #71 | 1,514 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2014 | 44–24 | 64.7% | #23 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2015 | 50–25 | 66.7% | #11 | 1,813 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2016 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #6 | 1,901 | 0 | 6 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2017 | 52–18 | 74.3% | #4 | 1,930 | 0 | 9 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2018 | 46–21 | 68.7% | #8 | 1,916 | 0 | 11 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2019 | 51–16 | 76.1% | #2 | 1,975 | 0 | 15 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2020 | 14–8 | 63.6% | #6 | 1,914 | 0 | 16 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2021 | 35–18 | 66.0% | #4 | 1,972 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2022 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #31 | 1,834 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2023 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #38 | 1,759 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2024 | 20–17 | 54.1% | #41 | 1,777 | 0 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2026 | 19–8 | 70.4% | #64 | 1,879 | 0 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |