H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Olga Savchuk vs Shahar Peer H2H: 0-1
Shahar Peer holds a 1–0 lead over Olga Savchuk in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Shahar Peer leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2006 Roland Garros first round 6-1 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.
UKR
Age 38
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2006* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Shahar Peer | 6-1 6-1 | Olga Savchuk | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olga Savchuk | #906 | #79 | 588 | 1,597 | 36 | 77 | 31.9% | 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 | Olga Savchuk | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2004 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #285 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2005 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #172 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2006 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #102 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #92 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2008 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #116 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2009 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #162 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2010 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #150 | 1,462 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2011 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #195 | 1,439 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #202 | 1,426 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #187 | 1,421 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2014 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #225 | 1,418 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2015 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #196 | 1,436 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2016 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #309 | 1,397 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |