H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Agnieszka Radwanska vs Emilie Loit H2H: 0-1
Emilie Loit holds a 1–0 lead over Agnieszka Radwanska in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Emilie Loit won the 2006 Prague third round 6-2 6-4.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
POL
Age 37
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2006* | Prague | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 6-2 6-4 | Agnieszka Radwanska | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agnieszka Radwanska | #74 | #2 | 8,530 | 2,081 | 506 | 237 | 68.1% | 0 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 6 | 20 |
| Emilie Loit | #161 | #27 | 1,016 | 1,780 | 162 | 180 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
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 | Agnieszka Radwanska | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2006 | 11–8 | 57.9% | #61 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2007 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #26 | 1,808 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2008 | 51–19 | 72.9% | #10 | 1,926 | 0 | 4 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 44–23 | 65.7% | #10 | 1,910 | 0 | 4 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 32–18 | 64.0% | #14 | 1,860 | 0 | 4 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2011 | 46–18 | 71.9% | #8 | 1,979 | 0 | 7 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2012 | 59–19 | 75.6% | #4 | 1,994 | 0 | 10 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2013 | 56–20 | 73.7% | #5 | 1,957 | 0 | 13 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2014 | 43–22 | 66.2% | #6 | 1,872 | 0 | 14 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2015 | 50–22 | 69.4% | #5 | 1,957 | 0 | 17 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2016 | 51–18 | 73.9% | #3 | 1,942 | 0 | 20 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2017 | 25–18 | 58.1% | #28 | 1,812 | 0 | 20 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2018 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #74 | 1,727 | 0 | 20 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |