H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Maria Elena Camerin H2H: 1-1
Shahar Peer and Maria Elena Camerin are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Shahar Peer leads 1–0 on grass, while Maria Elena Camerin leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2009 Wimbledon first round 6-2 7-6(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
ITA
Age 44
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2009* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Shahar Peer | 6-2 7-6(3) | Maria Elena Camerin | Match data |
| Feb 16, 2006* | Bangalore | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Maria Elena Camerin | 6-4 6-2 | 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 |
| Maria Elena Camerin | #817 | #41 | 774 | 1,666 | 97 | 147 | 39.8% | 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 | Maria Elena Camerin | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2001 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #112 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #123 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #100 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 2004 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #43 | 1,657 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 11–22 | 33.3% | #99 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2006 | 22–23 | 48.9% | #50 | 1,611 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #100 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | 2008 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #104 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 5–14 | 26.3% | #114 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #111 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #177 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #168 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #192 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |