H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Carla Suárez Navarro vs Emilie Loit H2H: 1-0
Carla Suárez Navarro holds a 1–0 lead over Emilie Loit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Carla Suárez Navarro leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Carla Suárez Navarro won the 2009 Barcelona fourth round 6-2 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.
ESP
Age 37
Right-Handed
162 cm / 5'4"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 17, 2009* | Barcelona | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Carla Suárez Navarro | 6-2 7-5 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carla Suárez Navarro | #342 | #6 | 4,015 | 2,022 | 339 | 247 | 57.8% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 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 | Carla Suárez Navarro | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2008 | 13–11 | 54.2% | #49 | 1,567 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2009 | 29–25 | 53.7% | #33 | 1,648 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2010 | 21–14 | 60.0% | #57 | 1,696 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2011 | 15–12 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,682 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2012 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #34 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2013 | 41–26 | 61.2% | #17 | 1,812 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2014 | 50–25 | 66.7% | #17 | 1,835 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2015 | 41–25 | 62.1% | #13 | 1,787 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2016 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #12 | 1,812 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2017 | 26–23 | 53.1% | #40 | 1,749 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2018 | 27–19 | 58.7% | #23 | 1,826 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2019 | 16–18 | 47.1% | #54 | 1,742 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2020 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #84 | 1,717 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2021 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #342 | 1,688 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |