H2H data updated: 2026-08-08 02:15 UTC
Kimiko Date vs Monica Seles H2H: 1-3
Monica Seles holds a 3–1 lead over Kimiko Date in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Monica Seles leads 3–0 on hard courts, while Kimiko Date leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Kimiko Date won the 1996 WTA Tour Championships fourth round 5-4 RET.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
JPN
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H
1
–
3
4 main draw meetings
USA
Age 52
Left-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Winner | Score | Loser | Match Data | Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kimiko Date | 5-4 (ret.) | Monica Seles | Match data | Nov 18, 1996 | WTA Tour Championships | WTA Finals | R16 | Carpet |
| Monica Seles | 6-4 1-6 7-6 | Kimiko Date | Match data | Sep 21, 1996* | Tokyo | WTA 500 | SF | Hard |
| Monica Seles | 6-2 7-5 | Kimiko Date | Match data | Jan 17, 1992* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard |
| Monica Seles | 6-3 6-1 | Kimiko Date | Match data | Aug 18, 1991* | Manhattan Beach | WTA 250 | F | Hard |
* 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 | #1,191 | #4 | 1,280 | 2,091 | 245 | 190 | 56.3% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 8 |
| Monica Seles | #223 | #1 | 4,056 | 2,540 | 586 | 123 | 82.7% | 9 | 12 | 2 | 7 | 23 | 53 |
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 | Monica Seles | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1988 | 5–3 | 62.5% | #86 | 1,599 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 33–9 | 78.6% | #6 | 2,005 | 0 | 1 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 55–6 | 90.2% | #2 | 2,297 | 1 | 10 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 74–6 | 92.5% | #1 | 2,445 | 4 | 20 |
| 18 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #119 | 1,563 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 70–5 | 93.3% | #1 | 2,500 | 7 | 30 |
| 19 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #79 | 1,665 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 17–2 | 89.5% | #8 | 2,486 | 8 | 32 |
| 20 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | #32 | 1,725 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 1992 | 27–14 | 65.9% | #21 | 1,853 | 0 | 1 | 1995 | 11–1 | 91.7% | #1 | 2,488 | 8 | 33 |
| 22 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | #13 | 1,948 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 46–9 | 83.6% | #2 | 2,344 | 9 | 38 |
| 23 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | #9 | 1,985 | 0 | 4 | 1997 | 45–14 | 76.3% | #5 | 2,180 | 9 | 41 |
| 24 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | #4 | 2,028 | 0 | 5 | 1998 | 42–13 | 76.4% | #6 | 2,180 | 9 | 43 |
| 25 | 1996 | 34–14 | 70.8% | #8 | 2,076 | 0 | 7 | 1999 | 36–12 | 75.0% | #6 | 2,120 | 9 | 44 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 56–13 | 81.2% | #4 | 2,154 | 9 | 47 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 40–10 | 80.0% | #10 | 2,132 | 9 | 51 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 46–13 | 78.0% | #7 | 2,091 | 9 | 53 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 10–7 | 58.8% | #60 | 1,995 | 9 | 53 |
| 37 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #189 | 2,048 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2009 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #69 | 1,845 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 39 | 2010 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #51 | 1,823 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 40 | 2011 | 7–24 | 22.6% | #87 | 1,570 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 41 | 2012 | 2–14 | 12.5% | #99 | 1,456 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 42 | 2013 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #75 | 1,576 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 43 | 2014 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #90 | 1,598 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 44 | 2015 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #182 | 1,574 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 46 | 2017 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1191 | 1,564 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |