H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Tatiana Panova H2H: 1-0
Shahar Peer holds a 1–0 lead over Tatiana Panova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Shahar Peer leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2005 Hyderabad third round 6-3 7-6(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
–
0
1 main draw meetings
RUS
Age 49
Right-Handed
154 cm / 5'1"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 10, 2005* | Hyderabad | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-3 7-6(2) | Tatiana Panova | 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 |
| Tatiana Panova | #1,113 | #20 | 1,270 | 1,782 | 130 | 196 | 39.9% | 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 | Tatiana Panova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1994 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #142 | 1,508 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #179 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #159 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | 1997 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #97 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #78 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 1999 | 14–23 | 37.8% | #40 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2000 | 23–28 | 45.1% | #34 | 1,698 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2001 | 22–30 | 42.3% | #40 | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 34–31 | 52.3% | #23 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | 2003 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #114 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | 2004 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #77 | 1,595 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #91 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #376 | 1,470 | 0 | 0 |