H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Kimiko Date Krumm vs Maya Kidowaki H2H: 2-0
Kimiko Date Krumm holds a 2–0 lead over Maya Kidowaki in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Kimiko Date Krumm leads 1–0 on grass and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 1992 Eastbourne second round 6-4 2-6 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.
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
JPN
Age 57
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 1992* | Eastbourne | WTA 250 | R64 | Grass | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-4 2-6 6-4 | Maya Kidowaki | Match data |
| Apr 20, 1989* | Tokyo | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-1 6-0 | Maya Kidowaki | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kimiko Date Krumm | — | — | — | 2,091 | 241 | 188 | 56.2% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 8 |
| Maya Kidowaki | #594 | #68 | 17 | 1,659 | 34 | 56 | 37.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Maya Kidowaki | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 | 1988 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #247 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #138 | 1,466 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #93 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 | 1991 | 13–14 | 48.1% | #73 | 1,640 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 | 1992 | 6–15 | 28.6% | #148 | 1,574 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 | 1993 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #200 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 | 1994 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #553 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |