H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Tathiana Garbin H2H: 2-0
Shahar Peer holds a 2–0 lead over Tathiana Garbin 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 2007 Toronto 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
–
0
2 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 49
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 2007 | Toronto | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-3 6-2 | Tathiana Garbin | Match data |
| Mar 24, 2007* | Miami | WTA 1000 | QF | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-0 6-3 | Tathiana Garbin | 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 |
| Tathiana Garbin | #86 | #22 | 1,255 | 1,710 | 167 | 207 | 44.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Tathiana Garbin | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #121 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 1999 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #126 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2000 | 23–19 | 54.8% | #42 | 1,629 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #91 | 1,577 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #71 | 1,600 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | 2003 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #82 | 1,557 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | 2004 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #58 | 1,535 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #85 | 1,557 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #38 | 1,628 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #36 | 1,647 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #55 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #59 | 1,597 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #87 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #86 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |