H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Marina Erakovic vs Shahar Peer H2H: 0-1
Shahar Peer holds a 1–0 lead over Marina Erakovic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Shahar Peer leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2013 Indian Wells first round 6-3 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
NZL
Age 38
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 5, 2013* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-3 6-4 | Marina Erakovic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marina Erakovic | #827 | #39 | 1,392 | 1,701 | 105 | 131 | 44.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 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 | Marina Erakovic | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #213 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #153 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2008 | 16–16 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #227 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2010 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #333 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2011 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,630 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2012 | 19–20 | 48.7% | #66 | 1,600 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2013 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #46 | 1,673 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2014 | 12–20 | 37.5% | #76 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2015 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #135 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2016 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #106 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2017 | 1–9 | 10.0% | #197 | 1,551 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |