H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Mirjana Lucic-Baroni vs Shahar Peer H2H: 1-0
Mirjana Lucic-Baroni holds a 1–0 lead over Shahar Peer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Mirjana Lucic-Baroni leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mirjana Lucic-Baroni won the 2014 US Open second round 6-7(6) 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.
CRO
Age 44
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H
1
–
0
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 28, 2014* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | 6-7(6) 6-3 6-2 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | #424 | #20 | 1,924 | 1,798 | 136 | 166 | 45.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 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 | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1997 | 11–3 | 78.6% | #49 | 1,692 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1998 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #51 | 1,776 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1999 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #48 | 1,757 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2000 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #202 | 1,601 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #192 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #203 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #348 | 1,526 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #455 | 1,538 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #258 | 1,519 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2010 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #96 | 1,554 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2011 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #129 | 1,551 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #105 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #110 | 1,563 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2014 | 12–8 | 60.0% | #60 | 1,706 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2015 | 17–26 | 39.5% | #68 | 1,657 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #80 | 1,629 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2017 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #32 | 1,698 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2018 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #327 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |