H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Zuzana Ondraskova H2H: 1-0
Shahar Peer holds a 1–0 lead over Zuzana Ondraskova in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Shahar Peer leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Shahar Peer won the 2006 Prague fourth round 7-6(6) 0-6 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
–
0
1 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 46
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2006* | Prague | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Shahar Peer | 7-6(6) 0-6 6-3 | Zuzana Ondraskova | 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 |
| Zuzana Ondraskova | #1,140 | #74 | 811 | 1,595 | 31 | 67 | 31.6% | 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 | Zuzana Ondraskova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2001 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #198 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #129 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 2003 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #88 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 2004 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #129 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #78 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | 2006 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #108 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | 2007 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,566 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #185 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #182 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #83 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 1–11 | 8.3% | #438 | 1,439 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1107 | 1,426 | 0 | 0 |