H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Anna Tatishvili vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-0
Anna Tatishvili holds a 1–0 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Anna Tatishvili leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anna Tatishvili won the 2015 Australian Open first round 7-5 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.
USA
Age 36
Right-Handed
171 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 21, 2015* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Anna Tatishvili | 7-5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anna Tatishvili | #1,071 | #50 | 1,210 | 1,608 | 43 | 92 | 31.9% | 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 | Anna Tatishvili | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1156 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2006 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #302 | 1,502 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2007 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #285 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #160 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2009 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #177 | 1,423 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2010 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #134 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2011 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #89 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2012 | 15–17 | 46.9% | #51 | 1,596 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2013 | 4–18 | 18.2% | #127 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2014 | 0–6 | 0.0% | #146 | 1,436 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2015 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #101 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2016 | 3–8 | 27.3% | #200 | 1,463 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2017 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #516 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2019 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #998 | 1,435 | 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 |