H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Sabine Lisicki vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 3-1
Sabine Lisicki holds a 3–1 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, Sabine Lisicki leads 2–1 on hard courts and 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 2015 Stanford third round 1-6 7-6(4) 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.
GER
Age 36
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
3
–
1
4 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 6, 2015* | Stanford | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 1-6 7-6(4) 6-2 | Sabine Lisicki | Match data |
| Aug 4, 2011* | San Diego | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Sabine Lisicki | 6-1 6-2 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| Jun 8, 2011* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R64 | Grass | Sabine Lisicki | 6-4 7-6(3) | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| Aug 5, 2009* | Los Angeles | WTA 500 | R64 | Hard | Sabine Lisicki | 7-6(5) 2-6 7-5 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sabine Lisicki | #502 | #12 | 3,251 | 1,940 | 206 | 172 | 54.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 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 | Sabine Lisicki | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #444 | 1,489 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #198 | 1,475 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2008 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #57 | 1,606 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2009 | 29–17 | 63.0% | #22 | 1,792 | 0 | 1 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2010 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #175 | 1,658 | 0 | 1 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2011 | 35–13 | 72.9% | #15 | 1,872 | 0 | 3 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2012 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #37 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2013 | 34–19 | 64.2% | #15 | 1,824 | 0 | 3 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2014 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #26 | 1,798 | 0 | 4 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2015 | 22–19 | 53.7% | #32 | 1,791 | 0 | 4 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2016 | 14–19 | 42.4% | #93 | 1,647 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2017 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #220 | 1,636 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2018 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #199 | 1,549 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2019 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #562 | 1,479 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2022 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #342 | 1,575 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2023 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #311 | 1,569 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |