H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Amanda Coetzer vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 2-1
Amanda Coetzer holds a 2–1 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Amanda Coetzer leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 1996 Tokyo quarterfinal 6-3 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
RSA
Age 54
Right-Handed
158 cm / 5'2"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 1996* | Tokyo | WTA 500 | QF | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-3 6-0 | Amanda Coetzer | Match data |
| May 25, 1994* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Amanda Coetzer | 6-2 6-1 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| Sep 27, 1993* | Tokyo Nichirei | WTA 250 | F | Hard | Amanda Coetzer | 6-3 6-2 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amanda Coetzer | #289 | #3 | 3,380 | 2,051 | 491 | 307 | 61.5% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 9 |
| 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 | Amanda Coetzer | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1988 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #152 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1989 | 16–13 | 55.2% | #63 | 1,675 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1990 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #76 | 1,662 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1991 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #68 | 1,686 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 35–15 | 70.0% | #17 | 1,857 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 42–18 | 70.0% | #15 | 1,991 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1994 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #18 | 1,885 | 0 | 3 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1995 | 31–22 | 58.5% | #19 | 1,910 | 0 | 3 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1996 | 31–20 | 60.8% | #14 | 1,863 | 0 | 3 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1997 | 60–25 | 70.6% | #4 | 2,013 | 0 | 5 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 1998 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #17 | 1,887 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1999 | 37–25 | 59.7% | #11 | 1,815 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2000 | 44–22 | 66.7% | #12 | 1,892 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2001 | 32–21 | 60.4% | #19 | 1,786 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2002 | 30–22 | 57.7% | #21 | 1,795 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2003 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #25 | 1,738 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2004 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #286 | 1,718 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |