H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Lori Mcneil vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-0
Lori Mcneil holds a 1–0 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Lori Mcneil leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Lori Mcneil won the 1996 Eastbourne third round 6-4 2-6 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.
USA
Age 62
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 21, 1996* | Eastbourne | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Lori Mcneil | 6-4 2-6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lori Mcneil | #867 | #9 | 303 | 2,032 | 377 | 273 | 58.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
| 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 | Lori Mcneil | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1980 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,484 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1981 | 2–0 | 100.0% | — | 1,520 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1982 | 1–2 | 33.3% | — | 1,503 | 0 | 1 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1983 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,569 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1984 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #97 | 1,609 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1985 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #93 | 1,587 | 0 | 1 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1986 | 42–22 | 65.6% | #14 | 1,884 | 0 | 3 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1987 | 54–24 | 69.2% | #11 | 2,017 | 0 | 3 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1988 | 46–20 | 69.7% | #13 | 1,904 | 0 | 5 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1989 | 24–22 | 52.2% | #36 | 1,760 | 0 | 6 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 1990 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #52 | 1,696 | 0 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1991 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #19 | 1,870 | 0 | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1992 | 37–20 | 64.9% | #15 | 1,962 | 0 | 9 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 1993 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #25 | 1,898 | 0 | 10 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 1994 | 26–15 | 63.4% | #17 | 1,871 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 1995 | 19–19 | 50.0% | #34 | 1,804 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 1996 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #83 | 1,726 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 1997 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #301 | 1,655 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 1998 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #91 | 1,717 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 1999 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #869 | 1,669 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |