H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Ana Ivanovic vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 4-0
Ana Ivanovic holds a 4–0 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Ana Ivanovic leads 4–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Ana Ivanovic won the 2011 Beijing second round 6-1 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SRB
Age 38
Right-Handed
184 cm / 6'0"
H2H
4
–
0
4 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 5, 2011* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Ana Ivanovic | 6-1 6-1 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| Mar 23, 2011* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Ana Ivanovic | 6-2 6-0 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| Mar 9, 2011* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Ana Ivanovic | 6-4 6-2 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| Nov 8, 2010* | Tournament of Champions | WTA Finals | SF | Hard | Ana Ivanovic | 7-5 6-7(5) 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ana Ivanovic | #63 | #1 | 6,912 | 2,095 | 419 | 213 | 66.3% | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 15 |
| 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 | Ana Ivanovic | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2004 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #101 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2005 | 32–14 | 69.6% | #16 | 1,847 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2006 | 36–18 | 66.7% | #14 | 1,900 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2007 | 49–17 | 74.2% | #4 | 2,034 | 0 | 5 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2008 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #5 | 1,975 | 1 | 8 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2009 | 22–14 | 61.1% | #21 | 1,825 | 1 | 8 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2010 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #17 | 1,938 | 1 | 10 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2011 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #22 | 1,877 | 1 | 11 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2012 | 33–18 | 64.7% | #13 | 1,872 | 1 | 11 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2013 | 38–23 | 62.3% | #16 | 1,855 | 1 | 11 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2014 | 59–18 | 76.6% | #5 | 2,019 | 1 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2015 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #16 | 1,857 | 1 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2016 | 15–14 | 51.7% | #63 | 1,702 | 1 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |