H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Lucie Safarova vs Shahar Peer H2H: 2-2
Lucie Safarova and Shahar Peer are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Shahar Peer leads 2–1 on hard courts, while Lucie Safarova leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Lucie Safarova won the 2011 Brisbane fourth round 3-6 6-1 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 39
Left-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H
2
–
2
4 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 7, 2011* | Brisbane | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Lucie Safarova | 3-6 6-1 7-5 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Feb 13, 2010* | Paris | WTA 500 | QF | Carpet | Lucie Safarova | 6-3 6-0 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Sep 27, 2007* | Luxembourg | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-3 6-3 | Lucie Safarova | Match data |
| Mar 8, 2007* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-3 1-6 6-4 | Lucie Safarova | 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 Safarova | #1,269 | #5 | 4,055 | 1,929 | 351 | 270 | 56.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| 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 Safarova | 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 | 15–9 | 62.5% | #47 | 1,665 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,625 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2007 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #23 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2008 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #63 | 1,640 | 0 | 4 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2009 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #41 | 1,768 | 0 | 4 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2010 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #33 | 1,722 | 0 | 4 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2011 | 34–23 | 59.6% | #25 | 1,797 | 0 | 4 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2012 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #17 | 1,771 | 0 | 4 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2013 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #29 | 1,797 | 0 | 5 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2014 | 36–23 | 61.0% | #16 | 1,858 | 0 | 5 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2015 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #9 | 1,829 | 0 | 6 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #62 | 1,696 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2017 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #30 | 1,791 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #105 | 1,754 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |