H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Anne Smith vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-0
Anne Smith holds a 1–0 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Anne Smith leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Anne Smith won the 1989 US Open first round 6-3 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
Age 67
Right-Handed
165 cm / 5'5"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 30, 1989* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Anne Smith | 6-3 6-0 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anne Smith | — | — | — | 2,050 | 221 | 173 | 56.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 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 | Anne Smith | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1977 | 8–3 | 72.7% | — | 1,634 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1978 | 14–7 | 66.7% | — | 1,784 | 0 | 2 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1979 | 28–28 | 50.0% | — | 1,847 | 0 | 2 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1980 | 21–21 | 50.0% | — | 1,866 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1981 | 36–25 | 59.0% | — | 1,934 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1982 | 27–19 | 58.7% | — | 1,899 | 0 | 2 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1983 | 11–9 | 55.0% | — | 1,897 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1984 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,873 | 0 | 2 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1985 | 10–4 | 71.4% | — | 1,899 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 1986 | 8–13 | 38.1% | — | 1,701 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1987 | 15–9 | 62.5% | — | 1,779 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1988 | 8–8 | 50.0% | — | 1,773 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1989 | 10–6 | 62.5% | — | 1,848 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1990 | 16–14 | 53.3% | — | 1,827 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1991 | 8–5 | 61.5% | — | 1,820 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |