H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 04:32 UTC
Madison Keys vs Jill Craybas H2H: 1-0
Madison Keys holds a 1–0 lead over Jill Craybas in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Madison Keys leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Madison Keys won the 2011 US Open first round 6-2 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.
USA
Age 31
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
USA
Age 52
Right-Handed
160 cm / 5'3"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2011* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Madison Keys | 6-2 6-4 | Jill Craybas | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Madison Keys | #23 | #5 | 4,999 | 2,136 | 363 | 211 | 63.2% | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 11 |
| Jill Craybas | #336 | #39 | 974 | 1,695 | 161 | 256 | 38.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Madison Keys | Jill Craybas | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 2009 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #616 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2011 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #273 | 1,516 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2012 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #137 | 1,514 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2013 | 24–17 | 58.5% | #38 | 1,726 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 19 | 2014 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #30 | 1,742 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 20 | 2015 | 31–19 | 62.0% | #18 | 1,802 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 21 | 2016 | 41–16 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,915 | 0 | 2 | 1996 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2017 | 17–10 | 63.0% | #19 | 1,892 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 23 | 2018 | 28–15 | 65.1% | #17 | 1,899 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #154 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2019 | 27–13 | 67.5% | #13 | 1,910 | 0 | 5 | 1999 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,445 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2020 | 8–5 | 61.5% | #16 | 1,866 | 0 | 5 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #145 | 1,449 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2021 | 11–15 | 42.3% | #56 | 1,731 | 0 | 5 | 2001 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2022 | 30–19 | 61.2% | #11 | 1,863 | 0 | 6 | 2002 | 19–15 | 55.9% | #57 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2023 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #12 | 1,879 | 0 | 7 | 2003 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #99 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2024 | 25–12 | 67.6% | #21 | 1,950 | 0 | 8 | 2004 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #59 | 1,499 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2025 | 37–15 | 71.2% | #7 | 1,964 | 1 | 10 | 2005 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #48 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 |
| 31 | 2026 | 25–10 | 71.4% | #23 | 2,020 | 1 | 11 | 2006 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #70 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 12–27 | 30.8% | #79 | 1,472 | 0 | 1 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #64 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #76 | 1,592 | 0 | 1 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #98 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 6–20 | 23.1% | #150 | 1,442 | 0 | 1 |
| 37 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2012 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #189 | 1,449 | 0 | 1 |
| 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2013 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #336 | 1,451 | 0 | 1 |