H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Misaki Doi vs Shahar Peer H2H: 0-1
Shahar Peer holds a 1–0 lead over Misaki Doi 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 2010 Osaka third round 6-2 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
JPN
Age 35
Left-Handed
159 cm / 5'3"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 14, 2010* | Osaka | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-2 6-3 | Misaki Doi | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Misaki Doi | #258 | #30 | 1,555 | 1,739 | 100 | 166 | 37.6% | 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 | Misaki Doi | 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 | 2010 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #132 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2011 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #120 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2012 | 10–9 | 52.6% | #93 | 1,553 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2013 | 9–15 | 37.5% | #90 | 1,570 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2014 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #124 | 1,553 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2015 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #54 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2016 | 19–26 | 42.2% | #40 | 1,670 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2017 | 11–17 | 39.3% | #122 | 1,544 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2018 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #128 | 1,578 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2019 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #82 | 1,646 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2020 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #83 | 1,572 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2021 | 10–20 | 33.3% | #105 | 1,589 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2022 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #173 | 1,474 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2023 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #258 | 1,503 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |