H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Emilie Loit vs Meilen Tu H2H: 0-3
Meilen Tu holds a 3–0 lead over Emilie Loit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Meilen Tu leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Meilen Tu won the 2008 Hobart third round 4-6 6-1 6-4.
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
0
–
3
3 main draw meetings
USA
Age 48
Right-Handed
163 cm / 5'4"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2008* | Hobart | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Meilen Tu | 4-6 6-1 6-4 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Oct 27, 2005* | Hasselt | WTA 500 | R32 | Hard | Meilen Tu | 6-3 6-7(2) 6-1 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| May 24, 2001* | Strasbourg | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Meilen Tu | 6-3 3-6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emilie Loit | #161 | #27 | 1,016 | 1,780 | 162 | 180 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Meilen Tu | #1,136 | #35 | 769 | 1,692 | 103 | 163 | 38.7% | 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 | Meilen Tu | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #160 | 1,542 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 3–10 | 23.1% | #161 | 1,506 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #157 | 1,518 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 6–13 | 31.6% | #81 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #209 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–11 | 21.4% | #103 | 1,485 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #67 | 1,576 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #45 | 1,615 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 16–24 | 40.0% | #73 | 1,561 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 4–14 | 22.2% | #143 | 1,478 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #162 | 1,464 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #120 | 1,474 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #90 | 1,532 | 0 | 1 |
| 29 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 | 2007 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #47 | 1,625 | 0 | 1 |
| 30 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 | 2008 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #630 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 |