H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Anabel Medina Garrigues vs Emilie Loit H2H: 1-0
Anabel Medina Garrigues holds a 1–0 lead over Emilie Loit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Anabel Medina Garrigues leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Anabel Medina Garrigues won the 2001 Antwerp fourth round 6-4 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
ESP
Age 43
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H
1
–
0
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 18, 2001* | Antwerp | WTA 500 | R16 | Clay | Anabel Medina Garrigues | 6-4 6-1 | Emilie Loit | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anabel Medina Garrigues | #741 | #16 | 2,505 | 1,852 | 310 | 275 | 53.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| 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 | Anabel Medina Garrigues | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 2000 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #109 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2001 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #66 | 1,563 | 0 | 1 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2002 | 9–3 | 75.0% | #116 | 1,687 | 0 | 1 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2003 | 13–12 | 52.0% | #71 | 1,613 | 0 | 1 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2004 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #39 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2005 | 28–23 | 54.9% | #33 | 1,747 | 0 | 4 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2006 | 34–24 | 58.6% | #27 | 1,690 | 0 | 6 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2007 | 25–22 | 53.2% | #34 | 1,694 | 0 | 7 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2008 | 41–24 | 63.1% | #22 | 1,833 | 0 | 8 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2009 | 33–26 | 55.9% | #27 | 1,683 | 0 | 9 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2010 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #71 | 1,565 | 0 | 9 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2011 | 35–21 | 62.5% | #27 | 1,774 | 0 | 11 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2012 | 23–25 | 47.9% | #50 | 1,629 | 0 | 11 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2013 | 8–19 | 29.6% | #100 | 1,553 | 0 | 11 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2014 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #452 | 1,501 | 0 | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |