H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Katarina Srebotnik H2H: 2-1
Shahar Peer holds a 2–1 lead over Katarina Srebotnik in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Shahar Peer leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2007 Roland Garros third round 6-1 4-6 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
–
1
3 main draw meetings
SLO
Age 45
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 2, 2007* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R32 | Clay | Shahar Peer | 6-1 4-6 6-3 | Katarina Srebotnik | Match data |
| Jan 8, 2005* | Auckland | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Katarina Srebotnik | 6-1 6-4 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Oct 1, 2004* | Seoul | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-3 6-3 | Katarina Srebotnik | 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 |
| Katarina Srebotnik | #704 | #20 | 2,474 | 1,845 | 224 | 204 | 52.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 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 | Katarina Srebotnik | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1999 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #66 | 1,520 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 8–18 | 30.8% | #120 | 1,484 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #97 | 1,512 | 0 | 1 |
| 21 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #36 | 1,727 | 0 | 2 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 2003 | 25–24 | 51.0% | #39 | 1,682 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2004 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #87 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 28–17 | 62.2% | #27 | 1,752 | 0 | 4 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2006 | 30–24 | 55.6% | #23 | 1,786 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #27 | 1,756 | 0 | 4 |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | 2008 | 41–25 | 62.1% | #20 | 1,830 | 0 | 4 |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #428 | 1,740 | 0 | 4 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #317 | 1,621 | 0 | 4 |