H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Elena Dementieva vs Emilie Loit H2H: 3-1
Elena Dementieva holds a 3–1 lead over Emilie Loit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Elena Dementieva leads 2–0 on grass. Most recently, Elena Dementieva won the 2003 S Hertogenbosch third round 7-6(3) 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.
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
3
–
1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2003 | S Hertogenbosch | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Elena Dementieva | 7-6(3) 7-5 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| May 22, 2003* | Strasbourg | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 6-3 2-6 6-3 | Elena Dementieva | Match data |
| Jun 28, 2002* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R64 | Grass | Elena Dementieva | 6-1 7-5 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Mar 2, 2002* | Acapulco | WTA 250 | QF | Clay | Elena Dementieva | 6-4 (ret.) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elena Dementieva | #10 | #3 | 8,286 | 2,108 | 472 | 243 | 66.0% | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 15 |
| 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 | Elena Dementieva | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #349 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1998 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1999 | 11–11 | 50.0% | #62 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2000 | 33–19 | 63.5% | #11 | 1,859 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 34–22 | 60.7% | #15 | 1,833 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 36–26 | 58.1% | #19 | 1,763 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2003 | 47–25 | 65.3% | #8 | 1,966 | 0 | 3 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 40–22 | 64.5% | #6 | 1,986 | 0 | 4 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2005 | 41–22 | 65.1% | #8 | 1,925 | 0 | 4 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2006 | 45–21 | 68.2% | #8 | 1,908 | 0 | 6 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 41–18 | 69.5% | #11 | 1,964 | 0 | 8 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2008 | 50–17 | 74.6% | #4 | 2,014 | 0 | 10 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2009 | 55–18 | 75.3% | #5 | 1,981 | 0 | 13 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2010 | 39–19 | 67.2% | #9 | 1,928 | 0 | 15 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |