H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Anabel Medina Garrigues vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-3
Kimiko Date Krumm holds a 3–1 lead over Anabel Medina Garrigues in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Kimiko Date Krumm leads 3–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 2010 Beijing second round 6-0 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.
ESP
Age 43
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
3
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 6, 2010* | Beijing | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-0 6-4 | Anabel Medina Garrigues | Match data |
| Nov 2, 2009 | Tournament of Champions | WTA Finals | RR | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-4 6-3 | Anabel Medina Garrigues | Match data |
| Sep 27, 2009* | Seoul | WTA 250 | F | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-3 6-3 | Anabel Medina Garrigues | Match data |
| Sep 17, 2009* | Guangzhou | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Anabel Medina Garrigues | 6-1 4-6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anabel Medina Garrigues | #741 | #16 | 2,505 | 1,852 | 310 | 275 | 53.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| 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 | Anabel Medina Garrigues | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2000 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #109 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2001 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #66 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2002 | 9–3 | 75.0% | #116 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2003 | 13–12 | 52.0% | #71 | 1,613 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2004 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #39 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2005 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #33 | 1,747 | 0 | 4 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2006 | 34–24 | 58.6% | #27 | 1,690 | 0 | 6 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2007 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #34 | 1,694 | 0 | 7 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2008 | 41–24 | 63.1% | #22 | 1,833 | 0 | 8 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2009 | 33–26 | 55.9% | #27 | 1,683 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2010 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #71 | 1,565 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2011 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #27 | 1,774 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2012 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #50 | 1,629 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2013 | 8–19 | 29.6% | #100 | 1,553 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2014 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #452 | 1,501 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |