H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Helena Sukova vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 3-0
Helena Sukova holds a 3–0 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Helena Sukova leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Helena Sukova won the 1992 US Open second round 6-2 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.
CZE
Age 61
Right-Handed
188 cm / 6'2"
H2H
3
–
0
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 3, 1992* | US Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Helena Sukova | 6-2 7-5 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| Feb 9, 1992* | Osaka | WTA 250 | SF | Carpet | Helena Sukova | 6-2 6-2 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| Jan 24, 1990* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Hard | Helena Sukova | 6-4 6-3 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Helena Sukova | #102 | #4 | 735 | 2,217 | 580 | 297 | 66.1% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 9 |
| 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 | Helena Sukova | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1981 | 6–4 | 60.0% | — | 1,583 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1982 | 23–23 | 50.0% | — | 1,757 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1983 | 33–20 | 62.3% | — | 1,907 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1984 | 48–23 | 67.6% | #7 | 2,041 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1985 | 54–21 | 72.0% | #9 | 2,028 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1986 | 69–21 | 76.7% | #6 | 2,151 | 0 | 3 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1987 | 58–19 | 75.3% | #7 | 2,129 | 0 | 5 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1988 | 49–19 | 72.1% | #8 | 2,120 | 0 | 5 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1989 | 39–15 | 72.2% | #8 | 2,043 | 0 | 6 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1990 | 41–17 | 70.7% | #14 | 2,025 | 0 | 6 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 1991 | 34–18 | 65.4% | #17 | 1,958 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1992 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #12 | 1,976 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1993 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #17 | 1,925 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1994 | 21–14 | 60.0% | #22 | 1,889 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1995 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #29 | 1,819 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1996 | 17–15 | 53.1% | #35 | 1,792 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1997 | 8–21 | 27.6% | #80 | 1,661 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1998 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #102 | 1,637 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |