H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Lucie Hradecka vs Shahar Peer H2H: 1-2
Shahar Peer holds a 2–1 lead over Lucie Hradecka in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Shahar Peer leads 2–0 on hard courts, while Lucie Hradecka leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2012 Hobart third round 6-3 6-1.
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 41
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
2
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 12, 2012* | Hobart | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-3 6-1 | Lucie Hradecka | Match data |
| Jan 20, 2010* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-7(5) 6-2 6-1 | Lucie Hradecka | Match data |
| May 1, 2009* | Fes | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Lucie Hradecka | 6-4 6-1 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lucie Hradecka | #1,142 | #41 | 1,271 | 1,726 | 92 | 120 | 43.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | Lucie Hradecka | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2006 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #220 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #223 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2008 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #118 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2009 | 14–11 | 56.0% | #64 | 1,599 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2010 | 5–17 | 22.7% | #110 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2011 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #52 | 1,580 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2012 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #46 | 1,653 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2013 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #148 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2014 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #154 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2015 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #53 | 1,641 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2016 | 5–13 | 27.8% | #166 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2017 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #193 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2019 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #302 | 1,615 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2021 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #567 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |