H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Jill Craybas H2H: 1-1
Shahar Peer and Jill Craybas are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Shahar Peer leads 1–0 on clay, while Jill Craybas leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2013 Katowice fourth round 6-1 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
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
USA
Age 52
Right-Handed
160 cm / 5'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2013* | Katowice | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Shahar Peer | 6-1 6-3 | Jill Craybas | Match data |
| Sep 27, 2008* | Seoul | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Jill Craybas | 6-2 7-5 | 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 |
| Jill Craybas | #336 | #39 | 974 | 1,695 | 161 | 256 | 38.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 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.
| Age | Shahar Peer | Jill Craybas | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1996 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #154 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 1999 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,445 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #145 | 1,449 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | 2001 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 19–15 | 55.9% | #57 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | 2003 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #99 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #59 | 1,499 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #48 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #70 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 12–27 | 30.8% | #79 | 1,472 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #64 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #76 | 1,592 | 0 | 1 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #98 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 6–20 | 23.1% | #150 | 1,442 | 0 | 1 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #189 | 1,449 | 0 | 1 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #336 | 1,451 | 0 | 1 |