H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 17:48 UTC
Shahar Peer vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-2
Kimiko Date Krumm holds a 2–1 lead over Shahar Peer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Kimiko Date Krumm leads 2–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Kimiko Date Krumm won the 2013 Australian Open second round 6-2 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.
ISR
Age 39
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 18, 2013* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R64 | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 6-2 7-5 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Oct 16, 2010* | Osaka | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Kimiko Date Krumm | 3-6 7-6(5) 7-5 | Shahar Peer | Match data |
| Oct 2, 2008* | Japan Open | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Shahar Peer | 6-3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shahar Peer | #1,185 | #11 | 3,410 | 1,966 | 268 | 204 | 56.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| 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 | Shahar Peer | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2004 | 3–3 | 50.0% | #176 | 1,509 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2005 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #45 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 38–20 | 65.5% | #20 | 1,826 | 0 | 3 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2007 | 39–21 | 65.0% | #17 | 1,830 | 0 | 3 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2008 | 24–20 | 54.5% | #38 | 1,707 | 0 | 3 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2009 | 36–21 | 63.2% | #30 | 1,787 | 0 | 5 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2010 | 47–21 | 69.1% | #13 | 1,885 | 0 | 5 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2011 | 23–21 | 52.3% | #37 | 1,706 | 0 | 5 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2012 | 15–22 | 40.5% | #74 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2013 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,558 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2014 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #117 | 1,539 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2015 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #177 | 1,526 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 |