H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Emilie Loit vs Silvija Talaja H2H: 1-0
Emilie Loit holds a 1–0 lead over Silvija Talaja in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Emilie Loit won the 2004 Casablanca fourth round 6-2 5-7 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
–
0
1 main draw meetings
CRO
Age 48
Right-Handed
173 cm / 5'8"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 9, 2004* | Casablanca | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 6-2 5-7 6-4 | Silvija Talaja | 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 |
| Silvija Talaja | #1,214 | #18 | 1,376 | 1,811 | 130 | 151 | 46.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
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 | Silvija Talaja | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1993 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #288 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1994 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #251 | 1,486 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1995 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #280 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 9–4 | 69.2% | #106 | 1,588 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #199 | 1,555 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #85 | 1,603 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 32–22 | 59.3% | #29 | 1,700 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 24–27 | 47.1% | #29 | 1,647 | 0 | 2 |
| 23 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 9–18 | 33.3% | #109 | 1,543 | 0 | 2 |
| 24 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #74 | 1,559 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 2003 | 15–21 | 41.7% | #93 | 1,547 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #114 | 1,543 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 | 2005 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #190 | 1,507 | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |