H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Anastasia Rodionova vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-1
Anastasia Rodionova and Kimiko Date Krumm are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 2013 Tokyo second round 6-2 4-1 RET.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
AUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 25, 2013* | Tokyo | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-2 4-1 (ret.) | Anastasia Rodionova | Match data |
| Feb 11, 2010* | Pattaya | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Anastasia Rodionova | 6-1 1-0 (ret.) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anastasia Rodionova | #872 | #62 | 1,095 | 1,649 | 86 | 150 | 36.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | Anastasia Rodionova | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2000 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #239 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #195 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #118 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2003 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #165 | 1,546 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2004 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #212 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2005 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #140 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2006 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #94 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2007 | 11–20 | 35.5% | #78 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2008 | 8–20 | 28.6% | #98 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2009 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #95 | 1,522 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2010 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #64 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2011 | 8–21 | 27.6% | #108 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2012 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #139 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2013 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #162 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2014 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #185 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2015 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #235 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2016 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #797 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2017 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #390 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |