H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Dominika Cibulkova vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 2-0
Dominika Cibulkova holds a 2–0 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Dominika Cibulkova leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Dominika Cibulkova won the 2014 Brisbane fourth round 6-3 1-6 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
SVK
Age 37
Right-Handed
161 cm / 5'3"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 3, 2014* | Brisbane | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Dominika Cibulkova | 6-3 1-6 6-3 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| Jul 28, 2011* | Stanford | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Dominika Cibulkova | 6-2 7-6(7) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominika Cibulkova | #315 | #4 | 5,245 | 1,966 | 365 | 261 | 58.3% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 |
| 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 | Dominika Cibulkova | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2006 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #153 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2007 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #51 | 1,605 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2008 | 34–25 | 57.6% | #19 | 1,840 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 20–17 | 54.1% | #28 | 1,733 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 30–24 | 55.6% | #31 | 1,753 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2011 | 41–21 | 66.1% | #18 | 1,893 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2012 | 34–25 | 57.6% | #15 | 1,810 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2013 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #23 | 1,738 | 0 | 3 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2014 | 33–22 | 60.0% | #10 | 1,721 | 0 | 4 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2015 | 19–16 | 54.3% | #38 | 1,757 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2016 | 53–21 | 71.6% | #5 | 1,951 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2017 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #26 | 1,778 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2018 | 27–18 | 60.0% | #25 | 1,865 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2019 | 2–8 | 20.0% | #315 | 1,764 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |