H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Aleksandra Wozniak vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-0
Aleksandra Wozniak holds a 1–0 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Aleksandra Wozniak leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Aleksandra Wozniak won the 2009 Tokyo second round 5-7 7-6(2) 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.
CAN
Age 38
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2009* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Aleksandra Wozniak | 5-7 7-6(2) 6-4 | Kimiko Date Krumm | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aleksandra Wozniak | #1,042 | #21 | 2,114 | 1,791 | 102 | 127 | 44.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimiko Date Krumm | — | — | — | 2,091 | 241 | 188 | 56.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 8 |
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 | Aleksandra Wozniak | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #492 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2005 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #168 | 1,459 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2006 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #93 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 8–16 | 33.3% | #136 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 19–15 | 55.9% | #34 | 1,676 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 30–25 | 54.5% | #34 | 1,765 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2010 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #125 | 1,602 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2011 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #107 | 1,582 | 0 | 1 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2012 | 18–16 | 52.9% | #43 | 1,690 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2013 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #288 | 1,631 | 0 | 1 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2014 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #130 | 1,607 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2016 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #301 | 1,541 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #300 | 1,514 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 2,042 | 0 | 7 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 6–11 | 35.3% | — | 1,841 | 0 | 8 |
| 39 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 19–18 | 51.4% | — | 1,814 | 0 | 8 |
| 40 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 7–24 | 22.6% | — | 1,567 | 0 | 8 |
| 41 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 2–14 | 12.5% | — | 1,454 | 0 | 8 |
| 42 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 12–15 | 44.4% | — | 1,575 | 0 | 8 |
| 43 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 11–14 | 44.0% | — | 1,597 | 0 | 8 |
| 44 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2015 | 3–6 | 33.3% | — | 1,574 | 0 | 8 |
| 46 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,564 | 0 | 8 |