H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Rachel Mcquillan vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-2
Kimiko Date Krumm holds a 2–1 lead over Rachel Mcquillan in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Kimiko Date Krumm leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 1994 Australian Open third round 6-3 7-5.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
AUS
Age 54
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
2
3 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 23, 1994* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-3 7-5 | Rachel Mcquillan | Match data |
| Feb 9, 1992* | Osaka | WTA 250 | QF | Carpet | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-3 6-2 | Rachel Mcquillan | Match data |
| Jan 6, 1990* | Brisbane | WTA 500 | QF | Hard | Rachel Mcquillan | 6-0 6-4 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rachel Mcquillan | #971 | #28 | 582 | 1,826 | 163 | 195 | 45.5% | 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 | Rachel Mcquillan | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1988 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #159 | 1,525 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1989 | 13–15 | 46.4% | #79 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1990 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #39 | 1,709 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1991 | 26–20 | 56.5% | #36 | 1,744 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 18–13 | 58.1% | #38 | 1,752 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 13–23 | 36.1% | #115 | 1,573 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 1994 | 20–17 | 54.1% | #61 | 1,650 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 1995 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #69 | 1,668 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 1996 | 2–9 | 18.2% | #186 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 1997 | 10–10 | 50.0% | #48 | 1,647 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 1998 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #185 | 1,529 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 1999 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #160 | 1,521 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2000 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #107 | 1,464 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2001 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #79 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2002 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #178 | 1,462 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #355 | 1,453 | 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 |