H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Eleni Daniilidou H2H: 2-0
Shahar Peer holds a 2–0 lead over Eleni Daniilidou in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Shahar Peer leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2006 Indian Wells third round 4-6 7-6(4) 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.
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
GRE
Age 43
Right-Handed
182 cm / 6'0"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9, 2006* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 4-6 7-6(4) 7-5 | Eleni Daniilidou | Match data |
| Jan 13, 2006* | Canberra | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 7-6(0) 6-2 | Eleni Daniilidou | 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 |
| Eleni Daniilidou | #1,070 | #14 | 1,639 | 1,878 | 185 | 203 | 47.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 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 | Shahar Peer | Eleni Daniilidou | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2001 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #81 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #22 | 1,778 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 32–24 | 57.1% | #26 | 1,706 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #34 | 1,683 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #69 | 1,638 | 0 | 3 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2006 | 27–24 | 52.9% | #36 | 1,720 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 27–29 | 48.2% | #42 | 1,720 | 0 | 4 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2008 | 8–8 | 50.0% | #144 | 1,700 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #157 | 1,677 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #165 | 1,666 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #90 | 1,566 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 8–21 | 27.6% | #100 | 1,483 | 0 | 5 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #186 | 1,431 | 0 | 5 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #414 | 1,412 | 0 | 5 |