H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Nuria Llagostera Vives H2H: 2-1
Shahar Peer holds a 2–1 lead over Nuria Llagostera Vives in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Shahar Peer leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2010 Cincinnati third round 6-3 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
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 46
Right-Handed
156 cm / 5'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 12, 2010* | Cincinnati | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-3 6-2 | Nuria Llagostera Vives | Match data |
| May 25, 2010* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Shahar Peer | 6-1 6-4 | Nuria Llagostera Vives | Match data |
| Jun 12, 2008* | Barcelona | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Nuria Llagostera Vives | 7-5 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 |
| Nuria Llagostera Vives | #775 | #35 | 968 | 1,685 | 77 | 110 | 41.2% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
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 | Nuria Llagostera Vives | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #128 | 1,510 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #103 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #192 | 1,441 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2003 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #140 | 1,448 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2004 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #76 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #50 | 1,620 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | 2006 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #275 | 1,626 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 5–10 | 33.3% | #145 | 1,557 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | 2008 | 13–10 | 56.5% | #68 | 1,620 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 8–16 | 33.3% | #146 | 1,559 | 0 | 2 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #127 | 1,564 | 0 | 2 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #131 | 1,548 | 0 | 2 |