H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Emilie Loit vs Rita Grande H2H: 1-1
Emilie Loit and Rita Grande are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on clay, while Rita Grande leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Emilie Loit won the 2004 Casablanca semifinal 7-6(1) 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
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
ITA
Age 51
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 10, 2004* | Casablanca | WTA 250 | SF | Clay | Emilie Loit | 7-6(1) 6-3 | Rita Grande | Match data |
| Oct 19, 2002* | Bratislava | WTA 250 | QF | Hard | Rita Grande | 6-4 2-6 6-1 | 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 |
| Rita Grande | #1,172 | #24 | 1,020 | 1,755 | 172 | 218 | 44.1% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 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 | Emilie Loit | Rita Grande | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #370 | 1,471 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #186 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #146 | 1,491 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #72 | 1,591 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 10–15 | 40.0% | #71 | 1,627 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 15–18 | 45.5% | #44 | 1,676 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #59 | 1,584 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 21–18 | 53.8% | #54 | 1,679 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,602 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 35–26 | 57.4% | #24 | 1,742 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 21–27 | 43.8% | #46 | 1,641 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 14–25 | 35.9% | #70 | 1,534 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 12–18 | 40.0% | #104 | 1,536 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #1088 | 1,518 | 0 | 3 |