H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Kimiko Date Krumm vs Naoko Kijimuta H2H: 1-0
Kimiko Date Krumm holds a 1–0 lead over Naoko Kijimuta in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Kimiko Date Krumm leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 1994 Tokyo Japan Open fourth round 7-5 3-6 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.
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
JPN
Age 54
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 1994* | Tokyo Japan Open | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 7-5 3-6 6-2 | Naoko Kijimuta | 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 |
| Naoko Kijimuta | #538 | #44 | 529 | 1,696 | 37 | 57 | 39.4% | 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 | Naoko Kijimuta | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 1–1 | 50.0% | — | 1,513 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #315 | 1,496 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #303 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 | 1994 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #156 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 | 1995 | 6–6 | 50.0% | #87 | 1,556 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 | 1996 | 17–18 | 48.6% | #45 | 1,682 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 | 1997 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #74 | 1,669 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #279 | 1,595 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |