H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Emilie Loit vs Virginia Ruano Pascual H2H: 2-0
Emilie Loit holds a 2–0 lead over Virginia Ruano Pascual in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Emilie Loit leads 2–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Emilie Loit won the 2008 Miami first round 7-6(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
2
–
0
2 main draw meetings
ESP
Age 52
Right-Handed
169 cm / 5'7"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 25, 2008* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Emilie Loit | 7-6(1) 6-4 | Virginia Ruano Pascual | Match data |
| Aug 3, 2007* | Stockholm | WTA 250 | R16 | Hard | Emilie Loit | 4-6 7-6(1) 7-6(7) | Virginia Ruano Pascual | 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 |
| Virginia Ruano Pascual | #998 | #28 | 893 | 1,819 | 199 | 235 | 45.9% | 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 | Virginia Ruano Pascual | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1990 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #307 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1991 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #194 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 | 1992 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #137 | 1,494 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 | 1993 | 6–10 | 37.5% | #126 | 1,515 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 | 1994 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #171 | 1,477 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 1995 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #61 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 | 1996 | 8–15 | 34.8% | #87 | 1,570 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 18–10 | 64.3% | #52 | 1,730 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #32 | 1,774 | 0 | 2 |
| 25 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #85 | 1,659 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 8–8 | 50.0% | #89 | 1,644 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 13–18 | 41.9% | #56 | 1,607 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 19–21 | 47.5% | #65 | 1,633 | 0 | 2 |
| 29 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #55 | 1,694 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 12–16 | 42.9% | #64 | 1,646 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 10–18 | 35.7% | #107 | 1,560 | 0 | 3 |
| 32 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 15–13 | 53.6% | #66 | 1,659 | 0 | 3 |
| 33 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2007 | 11–14 | 44.0% | #81 | 1,630 | 0 | 3 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #107 | 1,622 | 0 | 3 |
| 35 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #200 | 1,621 | 0 | 3 |
| 36 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2010 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #998 | 1,591 | 0 | 3 |