H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Gisela Dulko vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-1
Gisela Dulko and Kimiko Date Krumm are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Gisela Dulko leads 1–0 on clay, while Kimiko Date Krumm leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 2011 San Diego second round 7-5 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.
ARG
Age 41
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 3, 2011* | San Diego | WTA 500 | R64 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 7-5 6-0 | Gisela Dulko | Match data |
| Apr 28, 2011* | Barcelona | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Gisela Dulko | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gisela Dulko | #305 | #26 | 1,695 | 1,798 | 192 | 179 | 51.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 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 | Gisela Dulko | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2001 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #188 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2002 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #154 | 1,528 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2003 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #125 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2004 | 22–18 | 55.0% | #33 | 1,713 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2005 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #26 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2006 | 16–23 | 41.0% | #59 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2007 | 29–23 | 55.8% | #37 | 1,702 | 0 | 2 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2008 | 18–20 | 47.4% | #51 | 1,658 | 0 | 3 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2009 | 28–20 | 58.3% | #36 | 1,734 | 0 | 3 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2010 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #48 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2011 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #67 | 1,650 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2012 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #305 | 1,604 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |