H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Emilie Loit vs Sandra Kleinova H2H: 1-1
Emilie Loit and Sandra Kleinova are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Sandra Kleinova leads 1–0 on carpet, while Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Emilie Loit won the 2004 Roland Garros first round 6-4 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
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
CZE
Age 48
Right-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 26, 2004* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R128 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 6-4 6-4 | Sandra Kleinova | Match data |
| Feb 9, 2001* | Paris | WTA 500 | R32 | Carpet | Sandra Kleinova | 3-6 6-4 6-4 | 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 |
| Sandra Kleinova | #759 | #41 | 606 | 1,633 | 59 | 119 | 33.1% | 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 | Sandra Kleinova | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 6–2 | 75.0% | #112 | 1,587 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 4–9 | 30.8% | #128 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 13–20 | 39.4% | #42 | 1,623 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 3–20 | 13.0% | #163 | 1,444 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #63 | 1,531 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 6–17 | 26.1% | #127 | 1,495 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 5–11 | 31.2% | #121 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #137 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #87 | 1,527 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 5–13 | 27.8% | #145 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #170 | 1,483 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |