H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Anna-Lena Groenefeld H2H: 3-1
Shahar Peer holds a 3–1 lead over Anna-Lena Groenefeld in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Shahar Peer leads 2–0 on clay, while they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2007 Berlin second round 6-1 6-2.
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
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
GER
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 9, 2007* | Berlin | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Shahar Peer | 6-1 6-2 | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | Match data |
| Jan 11, 2007* | Sydney | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-4 6-2 | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | Match data |
| May 27, 2006* | Istanbul | WTA 500 | SF | Clay | Shahar Peer | 6-0 6-2 | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | Match data |
| Jul 28, 2005* | Stanford | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | 7-5 6-1 | 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 |
| Anna-Lena Groenefeld | #1,012 | #14 | 1,365 | 1,856 | 109 | 130 | 45.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
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.
| Shahar Peer | Anna-Lena Groenefeld | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #118 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 7–15 | 31.8% | #68 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 |
| 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #21 | 1,786 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #19 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 |
| 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #204 | 1,527 | 0 | 1 |
| 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 2008 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #76 | 1,596 | 0 | 1 |
| 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #65 | 1,655 | 0 | 1 |
| 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #166 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 |
| 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #266 | 1,542 | 0 | 1 |
| 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |