H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Sorana Cirstea vs Shahar Peer H2H: 0-1
Shahar Peer holds a 1–0 lead over Sorana Cirstea 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 2011 Australian Open second 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.
ROU
Age 36
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 21, 2011* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-3 6-2 | Sorana Cirstea | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sorana Cirstea | #17 | #17 | 2,535 | 2,024 | 373 | 343 | 52.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| 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.
| Age | Sorana Cirstea | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #353 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2007 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #108 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2008 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #36 | 1,752 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2009 | 21–24 | 46.7% | #45 | 1,691 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2010 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #93 | 1,573 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2011 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #60 | 1,600 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2012 | 30–26 | 53.6% | #27 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2013 | 33–26 | 55.9% | #22 | 1,710 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2014 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #94 | 1,593 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2015 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #242 | 1,540 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2016 | 10–12 | 45.5% | #79 | 1,612 | 0 | 1 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2017 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #37 | 1,727 | 0 | 1 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2018 | 13–20 | 39.4% | #84 | 1,621 | 0 | 1 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2019 | 21–16 | 56.8% | #74 | 1,650 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2020 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #71 | 1,663 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2021 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #39 | 1,755 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2022 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,693 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2023 | 24–21 | 53.3% | #26 | 1,826 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2024 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #69 | 1,754 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2025 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #43 | 1,870 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2026 | 30–11 | 73.2% | #17 | 1,985 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |