H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Barbara Schett vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 0-2
Kimiko Date Krumm holds a 2–0 lead over Barbara Schett in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Kimiko Date Krumm leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 1996 Key Biscayne second round 6-3 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
AUT
Age 50
Right-Handed
176 cm / 5'9"
H2H
0
–
2
2 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 23, 1996* | Key Biscayne | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-3 7-5 | Barbara Schett | Match data |
| Apr 9, 1994* | Tokyo Japan Open | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-0 6-1 | Barbara Schett | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barbara Schett | #97 | #7 | 2,188 | 1,975 | 256 | 227 | 53.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 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 | Barbara Schett | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1991 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1992 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #290 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1993 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #137 | 1,547 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1994 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #100 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1995 | 8–10 | 44.4% | #83 | 1,585 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1996 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #32 | 1,759 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1997 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #38 | 1,762 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1998 | 34–26 | 56.7% | #23 | 1,822 | 0 | 2 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1999 | 46–23 | 66.7% | #8 | 1,936 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2000 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #22 | 1,815 | 0 | 3 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2001 | 29–25 | 53.7% | #21 | 1,757 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2002 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #40 | 1,750 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2003 | 15–24 | 38.5% | #76 | 1,624 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2004 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #90 | 1,590 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2005 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #97 | 1,591 | 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 |