H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Gisela Dulko H2H: 0-1
Gisela Dulko holds a 1–0 lead over Shahar Peer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Gisela Dulko leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Gisela Dulko won the 2006 San Diego second round 2-6 6-3 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.
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
ARG
Age 41
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 2, 2006* | San Diego | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Gisela Dulko | 2-6 6-3 6-3 | 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 |
| Gisela Dulko | #305 | #26 | 1,695 | 1,798 | 192 | 179 | 51.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
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 | Gisela Dulko | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #188 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #154 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #125 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 22–18 | 55.0% | #33 | 1,713 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #26 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 16–23 | 41.0% | #59 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #37 | 1,702 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2008 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #51 | 1,658 | 0 | 3 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #36 | 1,734 | 0 | 3 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #48 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #67 | 1,650 | 0 | 4 |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | 2012 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #305 | 1,604 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |