H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Conchita Martínez vs Emilie Loit H2H: 2-2
Conchita Martínez and Emilie Loit are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while they are tied 1–1 on hard courts. Most recently, Conchita Martínez won the 2004 San Diego second round 6-1 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.
ESP
Age 54
Right-Handed
170 cm / 5'7"
H2H
2
–
2
4 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 28, 2004* | San Diego | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Conchita Martínez | 6-1 6-2 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Feb 28, 2002* | Acapulco | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 6-4 6-3 | Conchita Martínez | Match data |
| Jan 24, 1999* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R32 | Hard | Emilie Loit | 7-5 6-1 | Conchita Martínez | Match data |
| May 28, 1997* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Conchita Martínez | 4-6 6-2 6-3 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conchita Martínez | #1,498 | #2 | 3,180 | 2,263 | 669 | 275 | 70.9% | 1 | 9 | 0 | 4 | 19 | 33 |
| 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 | Conchita Martínez | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1988 | 14–6 | 70.0% | #41 | 1,730 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1989 | 35–9 | 79.5% | #7 | 1,933 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1990 | 38–10 | 79.2% | #11 | 2,063 | 0 | 7 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1991 | 36–12 | 75.0% | #9 | 2,076 | 0 | 10 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1992 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #8 | 2,054 | 0 | 11 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1993 | 66–13 | 83.5% | #4 | 2,158 | 0 | 16 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1994 | 51–14 | 78.5% | #3 | 2,065 | 1 | 20 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1995 | 57–10 | 85.1% | #2 | 2,182 | 1 | 26 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1996 | 44–16 | 73.3% | #4 | 2,074 | 1 | 28 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 1997 | 37–19 | 66.1% | #12 | 2,011 | 1 | 28 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 1998 | 38–16 | 70.4% | #8 | 1,968 | 1 | 30 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 1999 | 38–22 | 63.3% | #15 | 1,898 | 1 | 31 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2000 | 48–19 | 71.6% | #5 | 1,951 | 1 | 32 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2001 | 19–13 | 59.4% | #35 | 1,852 | 1 | 32 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2002 | 26–24 | 52.0% | #34 | 1,756 | 1 | 32 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2003 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #18 | 1,756 | 1 | 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2004 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #42 | 1,772 | 1 | 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2005 | 29–19 | 60.4% | #31 | 1,812 | 1 | 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |