H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Emilie Loit vs Denisa Chladkova H2H: 1-1
Emilie Loit and Denisa Chladkova are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay. Most recently, Emilie Loit won the 2003 Rome second round 6-3 7-6(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
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 47
Right-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 14, 2003* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 6-3 7-6(1) | Denisa Chladkova | Match data |
| Aug 5, 1999* | Knokke-Heist | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Denisa Chladkova | 7-5 2-6 7-6 | 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 |
| Denisa Chladkova | #655 | #31 | 983 | 1,740 | 129 | 165 | 43.9% | 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 | Denisa Chladkova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #190 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1996 | 4–2 | 66.7% | #77 | 1,578 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #54 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 4–19 | 17.4% | #119 | 1,440 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 18–15 | 54.5% | #58 | 1,646 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #50 | 1,645 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 17–20 | 45.9% | #50 | 1,661 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #63 | 1,642 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 20–19 | 51.3% | #43 | 1,666 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 21–20 | 51.2% | #54 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 7–18 | 28.0% | #127 | 1,552 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |