H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Jana Novotna vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 2-2
Jana Novotna and Kimiko Date Krumm are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on carpet, while Jana Novotna leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 1995 WTA Tour Championships fourth round 5-7 6-3 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CZE
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 13, 1995 | WTA Tour Championships | WTA Finals | R16 | Carpet | Kimiko Date Krumm | 5-7 6-3 6-4 | Jana Novotna | Match data |
| Jul 7, 1995* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | QF | Grass | Jana Novotna | 6-2 6-3 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| Sep 7, 1993* | US Open | Grand Slam | R16 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-4 6-4 | Jana Novotna | Match data |
| Feb 15, 1993* | Osaka | WTA 250 | F | Carpet | Jana Novotna | 6-3 6-2 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jana Novotna | #18 | #2 | 5,063 | 2,224 | 504 | 198 | 71.8% | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 13 | 24 |
| 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 | Jana Novotna | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1986 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #171 | 1,466 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1987 | 21–17 | 55.3% | #47 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1988 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #35 | 1,757 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1989 | 45–17 | 72.6% | #11 | 1,962 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1990 | 40–16 | 71.4% | #13 | 2,016 | 0 | 3 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1991 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #7 | 2,072 | 0 | 5 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1992 | 36–17 | 67.9% | #10 | 2,089 | 0 | 5 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1993 | 46–15 | 75.4% | #6 | 2,103 | 0 | 7 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1994 | 43–11 | 79.6% | #4 | 2,141 | 0 | 10 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 1995 | 30–12 | 71.4% | #11 | 2,031 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1996 | 47–12 | 79.7% | #5 | 2,209 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1997 | 52–15 | 77.6% | #2 | 2,173 | 0 | 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1998 | 50–14 | 78.1% | #3 | 2,129 | 1 | 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1999 | 26–15 | 63.4% | #18 | 1,924 | 1 | 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |