H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Su-Wei Hsieh vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 1-0
Su-Wei Hsieh holds a 1–0 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Su-Wei Hsieh leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Su-Wei Hsieh won the 2012 Pattaya fourth round 7-5 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
TPE
Age 40
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 10, 2012* | Pattaya | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Su-Wei Hsieh | 7-5 6-0 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Su-Wei Hsieh | #909 | #23 | 1,960 | 1,874 | 150 | 173 | 46.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 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 | Su-Wei Hsieh | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 2001 | 5–2 | 71.4% | #164 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #267 | 1,541 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2005 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #142 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2006 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #129 | 1,462 | 0 | 0 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2007 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #157 | 1,419 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2008 | 5–8 | 38.5% | #81 | 1,483 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2009 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #314 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2010 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #362 | 1,455 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2011 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #172 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2012 | 22–13 | 62.9% | #25 | 1,689 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2013 | 13–25 | 34.2% | #86 | 1,558 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2014 | 6–12 | 33.3% | #141 | 1,545 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2015 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #93 | 1,583 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2016 | 12–12 | 50.0% | #87 | 1,588 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2017 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #82 | 1,600 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2018 | 30–16 | 65.2% | #28 | 1,768 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2019 | 30–23 | 56.6% | #32 | 1,777 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2020 | 1–7 | 12.5% | #67 | 1,703 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2021 | 9–14 | 39.1% | #108 | 1,686 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2023 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #713 | 1,658 | 0 | 3 | 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 |