H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Anke Huber vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-1
Anke Huber and Kimiko Date Krumm are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Anke Huber leads 1–0 on carpet, while Kimiko Date Krumm leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anke Huber won the 1995 WTA Tour Championships quarterfinal 3-6 6-2 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.
GER
Age 51
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 13, 1995 | WTA Tour Championships | WTA Finals | QF | Carpet | Anke Huber | 3-6 6-2 6-1 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| Sep 5, 1993* | US Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-3 6-2 | Anke Huber | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anke Huber | #18 | #4 | 2,721 | 2,130 | 393 | 203 | 65.9% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 12 |
| 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 | Anke Huber | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1989 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #199 | 1,517 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1990 | 14–9 | 60.9% | #37 | 1,708 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1991 | 30–13 | 69.8% | #14 | 1,959 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1992 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #11 | 1,964 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1993 | 41–15 | 73.2% | #10 | 2,056 | 0 | 3 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1994 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #12 | 2,027 | 0 | 6 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1995 | 41–15 | 73.2% | #10 | 2,091 | 0 | 7 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1996 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #7 | 2,055 | 0 | 10 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1997 | 34–24 | 58.6% | #13 | 1,954 | 0 | 10 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1998 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #21 | 1,898 | 0 | 10 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1999 | 32–26 | 55.2% | #16 | 1,886 | 0 | 10 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2000 | 29–16 | 64.4% | #19 | 1,898 | 0 | 12 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2001 | 35–20 | 63.6% | #18 | 1,834 | 0 | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |