H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 2-1
Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy holds a 2–1 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy won the 1995 US Open fourth round 7-5 3-6 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
NED
Age 55
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5, 1995* | US Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Hard | Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy | 7-5 3-6 6-2 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| May 12, 1993* | Berlin | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy | 6-4 6-2 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| Jan 19, 1990* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 7-5 7-6(7) | Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy | #919 | #9 | 1,672 | 2,025 | 295 | 220 | 57.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| 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 | Brenda Schultz-Mccarthy | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1986 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1987 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #149 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1988 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #40 | 1,689 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1989 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #83 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1990 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #43 | 1,677 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1991 | 24–19 | 55.8% | #30 | 1,799 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1992 | 30–20 | 60.0% | #33 | 1,818 | 0 | 2 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1993 | 26–20 | 56.5% | #40 | 1,789 | 0 | 3 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1994 | 44–21 | 67.7% | #15 | 1,885 | 0 | 3 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1995 | 37–15 | 71.2% | #13 | 1,970 | 0 | 5 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1996 | 35–18 | 66.0% | #12 | 1,908 | 0 | 6 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 1997 | 34–25 | 57.6% | #15 | 1,855 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1998 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #188 | 1,673 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1999 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #893 | 1,651 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2006 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #299 | 1,642 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2007 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #190 | 1,614 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #391 | 1,592 | 0 | 7 | 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 |