H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 16:30 UTC
Yanina Wickmayer vs Kimiko Date Krumm H2H: 2-0
Yanina Wickmayer holds a 2–0 lead over Kimiko Date Krumm in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Yanina Wickmayer leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Yanina Wickmayer won the 2010 Auckland quarterfinal 6-2 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.
BEL
Age 36
Right-Handed
182 cm / 6'0"
H2H
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
Age 55
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 9, 2010* | Auckland | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Yanina Wickmayer | 6-2 6-2 | Kimiko Date Krumm | Match data |
| Nov 2, 2009 | Tournament of Champions | WTA Finals | RR | Hard | Yanina Wickmayer | 7-6(5) 6-3 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yanina Wickmayer | #765 | #12 | 3,320 | 1,932 | 218 | 217 | 50.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 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 | Yanina Wickmayer | Kimiko Date Krumm | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2008 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #73 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | 1989 | 6–5 | 54.5% | — | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2009 | 32–16 | 66.7% | #16 | 1,843 | 0 | 2 | 1990 | 10–7 | 58.8% | — | 1,664 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2010 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #23 | 1,769 | 0 | 3 | 1991 | 12–11 | 52.2% | — | 1,725 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2011 | 28–18 | 60.9% | #26 | 1,771 | 0 | 3 | 1992 | 26–13 | 66.7% | — | 1,867 | 0 | 1 |
| 22 | 2012 | 28–25 | 52.8% | #23 | 1,614 | 0 | 3 | 1993 | 25–11 | 69.4% | — | 1,956 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2013 | 17–24 | 41.5% | #51 | 1,588 | 0 | 3 | 1994 | 32–12 | 72.7% | — | 1,987 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | 2014 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #75 | 1,556 | 0 | 3 | 1995 | 39–12 | 76.5% | — | 2,029 | 0 | 5 |
| 25 | 2015 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #41 | 1,684 | 0 | 4 | 1996 | 31–13 | 70.5% | — | 2,071 | 0 | 7 |
| 26 | 2016 | 14–23 | 37.8% | #58 | 1,574 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2017 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #115 | 1,624 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2018 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #122 | 1,637 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2019 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #152 | 1,560 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2020 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #166 | 1,565 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2022 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #321 | 1,554 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2023 | 8–7 | 53.3% | #71 | 1,651 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2024 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #765 | 1,530 | 0 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2025 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #765 | 1,500 | 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 |