H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Maria Kirilenko H2H: 1-3
Maria Kirilenko holds a 3–1 lead over Shahar Peer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Maria Kirilenko leads 2–1 on hard courts and 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Maria Kirilenko won the 2012 New Haven third round 6-2 6-2.
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
–
3
4 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 39
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 23, 2012* | New Haven | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Maria Kirilenko | 6-2 6-2 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Jul 30, 2010* | Stanford | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Maria Kirilenko | 6-4 6-3 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Jan 9, 2010* | Auckland | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-0 3-6 6-1 | Maria Kirilenko | Match data |
| Feb 1, 2007* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R32 | Carpet | Maria Kirilenko | 6-2 6-3 | 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 Kirilenko | #947 | #10 | 3,471 | 1,910 | 282 | 228 | 55.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 |
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 Kirilenko | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #373 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 5–5 | 50.0% | #124 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #107 | 1,575 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #25 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #30 | 1,656 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 28–26 | 51.9% | #25 | 1,739 | 0 | 2 |
| 21 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #29 | 1,722 | 0 | 5 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #62 | 1,719 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2010 | 37–23 | 61.7% | #20 | 1,827 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2011 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #28 | 1,816 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2012 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #14 | 1,775 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | 2013 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #19 | 1,786 | 0 | 6 |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | 2014 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #187 | 1,698 | 0 | 6 |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |