H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 22:32 UTC
Karolina Pliskova vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 2-0
Karolina Pliskova holds a 2–0 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Karolina Pliskova leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Karolina Pliskova won the 2015 Stanford fourth round 7-5 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.
CZE
Age 34
Right-Handed
186 cm / 6'1"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 7, 2015* | Stanford | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Karolina Pliskova | 7-5 6-2 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| Jul 31, 2014* | Stanford | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Karolina Pliskova | 6-1 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Karolina Pliskova | #64 | #1 | 6,940 | 2,041 | 421 | 241 | 63.6% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 5 | 17 |
| 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 | Karolina Pliskova | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #736 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2008 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #465 | 1,530 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #221 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2010 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #212 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2011 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #145 | 1,467 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2012 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #118 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2013 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #71 | 1,514 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2014 | 44–24 | 64.7% | #23 | 1,799 | 0 | 3 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2015 | 50–25 | 66.7% | #11 | 1,813 | 0 | 4 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2016 | 38–19 | 66.7% | #6 | 1,901 | 0 | 6 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2017 | 52–18 | 74.3% | #4 | 1,930 | 0 | 9 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2018 | 46–21 | 68.7% | #8 | 1,916 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2019 | 51–16 | 76.1% | #2 | 1,975 | 0 | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2020 | 14–8 | 63.6% | #6 | 1,914 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2021 | 35–18 | 66.0% | #4 | 1,972 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2022 | 21–19 | 52.5% | #31 | 1,834 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2023 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #38 | 1,759 | 0 | 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2024 | 20–17 | 54.1% | #41 | 1,777 | 0 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2026 | 19–8 | 70.4% | #64 | 1,879 | 0 | 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |