H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Petra Cetkovska vs Shahar Peer H2H: 1-2
Shahar Peer holds a 2–1 lead over Petra Cetkovska in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Shahar Peer leads 2–0 on hard courts, while Petra Cetkovska leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Petra Cetkovska won the 2012 Barcelona third round 6-1 5-7 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CZE
Age 41
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
1
–
2
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2012* | Barcelona | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Petra Cetkovska | 6-1 5-7 7-5 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Jan 8, 2009* | Auckland | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 7-6(4) 6-2 | Petra Cetkovska | Match data |
| Sep 25, 2008* | Seoul | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-3 6-4 | Petra Cetkovska | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Petra Cetkovska | #954 | #25 | 1,955 | 1,761 | 73 | 81 | 47.4% | 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 | Petra Cetkovska | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2007 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #104 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2008 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #83 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2009 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #149 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2010 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #143 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2011 | 15–9 | 62.5% | #31 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2012 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #55 | 1,724 | 0 | 0 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2013 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #139 | 1,651 | 0 | 0 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2014 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #58 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2015 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #130 | 1,632 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2016 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #591 | 1,598 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |