H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Jelena Dokic vs Emilie Loit H2H: 1-0
Jelena Dokic holds a 1–0 lead over Emilie Loit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Jelena Dokic leads 1–0 on carpet. Most recently, Jelena Dokic won the 2003 Paris fourth round 6-3 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.
AUS
Age 43
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 7, 2003* | Paris | WTA 500 | R16 | Carpet | Jelena Dokic | 6-3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jelena Dokic | #945 | #4 | 3,338 | 2,031 | 208 | 175 | 54.3% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6 |
| Emilie Loit | #161 | #27 | 1,016 | 1,780 | 162 | 180 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 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 | Jelena Dokic | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #349 | 1,497 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1999 | 11–10 | 52.4% | #43 | 1,629 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 2000 | 28–19 | 59.6% | #24 | 1,769 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2001 | 53–23 | 69.7% | #8 | 1,999 | 0 | 3 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2002 | 53–27 | 66.2% | #9 | 1,897 | 0 | 5 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2003 | 28–30 | 48.3% | #15 | 1,778 | 0 | 5 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2004 | 7–16 | 30.4% | #124 | 1,582 | 0 | 5 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2005 | 2–5 | 28.6% | #349 | 1,525 | 0 | 5 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2006 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #587 | 1,499 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2008 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #179 | 1,480 | 0 | 5 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2009 | 6–9 | 40.0% | #56 | 1,527 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2010 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #138 | 1,513 | 0 | 5 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2011 | 15–16 | 48.4% | #66 | 1,592 | 0 | 6 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2012 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #258 | 1,516 | 0 | 6 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |