H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Nana Smith vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-3
Kimiko Date Krumm holds a 3–1 lead over Nana Smith in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Kimiko Date Krumm leads 2–0 on hard courts, while Nana Smith leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 1996 Tokyo fourth round 4-6 6-4 6-3.
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
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 20, 1996* | Tokyo | WTA 500 | R16 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 4-6 6-4 6-3 | Nana Smith | Match data |
| Jun 22, 1995* | Eastbourne | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-2 6-1 | Nana Smith | Match data |
| Apr 15, 1995* | Tokyo | WTA 500 | SF | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-1 6-2 | Nana Smith | Match data |
| Feb 2, 1991* | Tokyo Pan Pacific | WTA 250 | R16 | Carpet | Nana Smith | 7-5 6-1 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nana Smith | #669 | #51 | 332 | 1,649 | 65 | 114 | 36.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 | Nana Smith | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1988 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #201 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1989 | 7–11 | 38.9% | #103 | 1,586 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1990 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #113 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1991 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #144 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1992 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #118 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1993 | 1–11 | 8.3% | #317 | 1,445 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1994 | 9–7 | 56.2% | #58 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1995 | 7–13 | 35.0% | #128 | 1,545 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1996 | 13–13 | 50.0% | #70 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 1997 | 4–12 | 25.0% | #105 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1998 | 4–8 | 33.3% | #117 | 1,537 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 1999 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #134 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2000 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #218 | 1,499 | 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 |