H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Shuai Zhang vs Shahar Peer H2H: 1-0
Shuai Zhang holds a 1–0 lead over Shahar Peer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Shuai Zhang leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Shuai Zhang won the 2014 Birmingham third round 6-3 3-6 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.
CHN
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2014* | Birmingham | WTA 500 | R32 | Grass | Shuai Zhang | 6-3 3-6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shuai Zhang | #54 | #22 | 1,905 | 1,856 | 225 | 288 | 43.9% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Shahar Peer | #1,185 | #11 | 3,410 | 1,966 | 268 | 204 | 56.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
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.
| Shuai Zhang | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles |
| 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #203 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 2007 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #149 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 2008 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #235 | 1,412 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 2009 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #154 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 2010 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #90 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 2011 | 8–22 | 26.7% | #126 | 1,443 | 0 | 0 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 2012 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #127 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 2013 | 9–4 | 69.2% | #52 | 1,599 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 2014 | 18–24 | 42.9% | #61 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 2015 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #139 | 1,519 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 2016 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #23 | 1,722 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 2017 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #36 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 2018 | 28–27 | 50.9% | #40 | 1,726 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2019 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #40 | 1,680 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020 | 12–10 | 54.5% | #35 | 1,731 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2021 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #60 | 1,632 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2022 | 34–26 | 56.7% | #25 | 1,732 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 4–18 | 18.2% | #245 | 1,525 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024 | 5–12 | 29.4% | #205 | 1,576 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2025 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #81 | 1,731 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2026 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #54 | 1,714 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |