H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Emilie Loit vs Cara Black H2H: 2-2
Emilie Loit and Cara Black are tied 2–2 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 4 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay, while Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on grass. Most recently, Emilie Loit won the 2004 Birmingham third round 6-1 6-7(2) 6-3.
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
–
2
4 main draw meetings
ZIM
Age 47
Right-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2004* | Birmingham | WTA 250 | R32 | Grass | Emilie Loit | 6-1 6-7(2) 6-3 | Cara Black | Match data |
| May 24, 2002* | Madrid | WTA 1000 | R16 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 6-4 6-4 | Cara Black | Match data |
| Jan 16, 2002* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Cara Black | 7-5 6-3 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Apr 16, 1998* | Makarska | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Cara Black | 4-6 6-2 6-0 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emilie Loit | #161 | #27 | 1,016 | 1,780 | 162 | 180 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Cara Black | #679 | #31 | 869 | 1,770 | 114 | 149 | 43.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
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 | Cara Black | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1998 | 10–10 | 50.0% | #44 | 1,614 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 17–22 | 43.6% | #50 | 1,628 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 22–20 | 52.4% | #41 | 1,742 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 19–25 | 43.2% | #58 | 1,635 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #56 | 1,620 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #51 | 1,601 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 5–20 | 20.0% | #138 | 1,457 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #179 | 1,491 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #288 | 1,496 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #660 | 1,480 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |