H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Pauline Parmentier vs Shahar Peer H2H: 0-3
Shahar Peer holds a 3–0 lead over Pauline Parmentier in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Shahar Peer leads 3–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2014 Guangzhou third round 7-6(8) 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.
FRA
Age 40
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
3
3 main draw meetings
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2014* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 7-6(8) 6-3 | Pauline Parmentier | Match data |
| Aug 18, 2011* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-2 6-3 | Pauline Parmentier | Match data |
| Sep 2, 2010* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-2 6-3 | Pauline Parmentier | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pauline Parmentier | #346 | #40 | 1,121 | 1,702 | 121 | 188 | 39.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 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 | Pauline Parmentier | 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 | 2005 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #222 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2006 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #188 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2007 | 9–4 | 69.2% | #57 | 1,612 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2008 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #61 | 1,585 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2009 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #108 | 1,536 | 0 | 2 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2010 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #105 | 1,444 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2011 | 5–13 | 27.8% | #74 | 1,441 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2012 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #65 | 1,567 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2013 | 1–10 | 9.1% | #229 | 1,465 | 0 | 2 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2014 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #80 | 1,523 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2015 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #120 | 1,460 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2016 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #70 | 1,580 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2017 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #79 | 1,656 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2018 | 16–15 | 51.6% | #56 | 1,682 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2019 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #123 | 1,598 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2020 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #173 | 1,544 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |