H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:30 UTC
Petra Martic vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 0-1
Kimiko Date Krumm holds a 1–0 lead over Petra Martic in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Kimiko Date Krumm leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 2010 Estoril third round 6-7(4) 7-5 7-6(2).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CRO
Age 35
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2010* | Estoril | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-7(4) 7-5 7-6(2) | Petra Martic | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Petra Martic | #349 | #14 | 2,850 | 1,942 | 212 | 214 | 49.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 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 | Petra Martic | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #330 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2008 | 2–1 | 66.7% | #215 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2009 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #82 | 1,538 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2010 | 5–14 | 26.3% | #142 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2011 | 16–14 | 53.3% | #50 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2012 | 18–18 | 50.0% | #59 | 1,690 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2013 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #107 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2014 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #186 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2015 | 0–8 | 0.0% | #148 | 1,435 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2016 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #262 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2017 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #89 | 1,612 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2018 | 26–17 | 60.5% | #32 | 1,795 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2019 | 36–17 | 67.9% | #15 | 1,903 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2020 | 14–11 | 56.0% | #18 | 1,805 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2021 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #54 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2022 | 25–17 | 59.5% | #38 | 1,794 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2023 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #40 | 1,808 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2024 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #122 | 1,649 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2025 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #209 | 1,611 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |