H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Karolina Sprem H2H: 2-0
Shahar Peer holds a 2–0 lead over Karolina Sprem in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Shahar Peer leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2010 Paris fourth round 6-4 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
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 41
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 12, 2010* | Paris | WTA 500 | R16 | Carpet | Shahar Peer | 6-4 6-3 | Karolina Sprem | Match data |
| Jan 12, 2006* | Canberra | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 7-5 6-3 | Karolina Sprem | 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 |
| Karolina Sprem | #921 | #17 | 1,504 | 1,867 | 91 | 103 | 46.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Karolina Sprem | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #273 | 1,482 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 12–8 | 60.0% | #59 | 1,620 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #18 | 1,779 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 15–23 | 39.5% | #65 | 1,663 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #89 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #209 | 1,614 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2008 | 7–7 | 50.0% | #174 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #92 | 1,569 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #94 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #817 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |