H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Kathrin Woerle H2H: 2-0
Shahar Peer holds a 2–0 lead over Kathrin Woerle 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 2009 Tashkent fourth round 6-2 6-4.
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
GER
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 25, 2009* | Tashkent | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-2 6-4 | Kathrin Woerle | Match data |
| Sep 17, 2009* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-1 6-4 | Kathrin Woerle | 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 |
| Kathrin Woerle | #1,295 | #119 | 537 | 1,500 | 2 | 20 | 9.1% | 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.
| Shahar Peer | Kathrin Woerle | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #160 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 |
| 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #213 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #164 | 1,466 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | 2009 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #124 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 2010 | 0–7 | 0.0% | #160 | 1,411 | 0 | 0 |
| 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #152 | 1,404 | 0 | 0 |
| 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2012 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #207 | 1,385 | 0 | 0 |
| 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |