H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Timea Bacsinszky vs Shahar Peer H2H: 0-2
Shahar Peer holds a 2–0 lead over Timea Bacsinszky 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 2010 Beijing quarterfinal 7-6(4) 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SUI
Age 37
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
ISR
Age 39
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 9, 2010* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | QF | Hard | Shahar Peer | 7-6(4) 6-4 | Timea Bacsinszky | Match data |
| Sep 29, 2010* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 5-7 7-5 6-4 | Timea Bacsinszky | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timea Bacsinszky | #941 | #9 | 3,157 | 1,933 | 161 | 137 | 54.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 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 | Timea Bacsinszky | Shahar Peer | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2004 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #252 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2006 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #124 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 2007 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #122 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2008 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #54 | 1,592 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 |
| 20 | 2009 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #53 | 1,739 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 |
| 21 | 2010 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #50 | 1,693 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 |
| 22 | 2011 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #247 | 1,662 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 |
| 23 | 2012 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #179 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 |
| 24 | 2013 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #237 | 1,596 | 0 | 1 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2014 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #48 | 1,678 | 0 | 1 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 |
| 26 | 2015 | 37–14 | 72.5% | #12 | 1,842 | 0 | 3 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 |
| 27 | 2016 | 32–17 | 65.3% | #15 | 1,777 | 0 | 4 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 |
| 28 | 2017 | 15–9 | 62.5% | #39 | 1,816 | 0 | 4 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 |
| 29 | 2018 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #191 | 1,725 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2019 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #139 | 1,630 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |