H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Alicia Molik vs Emilie Loit H2H: 0-1
Emilie Loit holds a 1–0 lead over Alicia Molik in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Emilie Loit won the 2002 Roland Garros first round 6-2 3-6 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.
AUS
Age 45
Right-Handed
182 cm / 6'0"
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 29, 2002* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 6-2 3-6 7-5 | Alicia Molik | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alicia Molik | #403 | #8 | 2,630 | 2,035 | 151 | 161 | 48.4% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| 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 | Alicia Molik | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 1999 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #96 | 1,537 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2000 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #115 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2001 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #47 | 1,613 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2002 | 10–19 | 34.5% | #94 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2003 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #36 | 1,705 | 0 | 1 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2004 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #13 | 1,938 | 0 | 4 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2005 | 17–14 | 54.8% | #28 | 1,779 | 0 | 5 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2006 | 6–14 | 30.0% | #165 | 1,632 | 0 | 5 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2007 | 18–22 | 45.0% | #56 | 1,628 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2008 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #308 | 1,577 | 0 | 5 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2010 | 8–12 | 40.0% | #129 | 1,561 | 0 | 5 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2011 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #349 | 1,584 | 0 | 5 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |