H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Emilie Loit vs Camille Pin H2H: 2-1
Emilie Loit holds a 2–1 lead over Camille Pin in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Emilie Loit won the 2007 Barcelona fourth round 6-1 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.
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H
2
–
1
3 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 44
Right-Handed
162 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2007* | Barcelona | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 6-1 6-1 | Camille Pin | Match data |
| Jan 6, 2007* | Auckland | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Camille Pin | 6-3 6-3 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Aug 30, 2006* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Emilie Loit | 5-7 6-4 7-6(4) | Camille Pin | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emilie Loit | #161 | #27 | 1,016 | 1,780 | 162 | 180 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Camille Pin | #1,143 | #61 | 752 | 1,619 | 54 | 88 | 38.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Emilie Loit | Camille Pin | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #175 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #136 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #169 | 1,484 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #117 | 1,497 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 5–13 | 27.8% | #116 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 2006 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #75 | 1,524 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 17–23 | 42.5% | #76 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #87 | 1,592 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 4–7 | 36.4% | #155 | 1,581 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |