H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Amélie Mauresmo H2H: 0-1
Amélie Mauresmo holds a 1–0 lead over Shahar Peer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Amélie Mauresmo leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Amélie Mauresmo won the 2007 Eastbourne quarterfinal 6-3 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2007* | Eastbourne | WTA 500 | QF | Grass | Amélie Mauresmo | 6-3 6-4 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shahar Peer | #1,185 | #11 | 3,410 | 1,966 | 268 | 204 | 56.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Amélie Mauresmo | #21 | #1 | 4,992 | 2,217 | 458 | 183 | 71.5% | 2 | 6 | 1 | 15 | 1 | 25 |
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 | Shahar Peer | Amélie Mauresmo | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #250 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #180 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #100 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 20–18 | 52.6% | #29 | 1,729 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 | 1999 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #10 | 1,914 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 26–12 | 68.4% | #16 | 1,932 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 43–12 | 78.2% | #9 | 2,029 | 0 | 6 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,060 | 0 | 8 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2003 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #4 | 2,061 | 0 | 10 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2004 | 56–11 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,175 | 0 | 15 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 53–16 | 76.8% | #3 | 2,127 | 0 | 19 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | 2006 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,135 | 2 | 23 |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #18 | 1,960 | 2 | 24 |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | 2008 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #24 | 1,815 | 2 | 24 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,871 | 2 | 25 |