H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Jelena Kostanic Tosic vs Emilie Loit H2H: 1-1
Jelena Kostanic Tosic and Emilie Loit are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on clay. Most recently, Jelena Kostanic Tosic won the 2005 Budapest third round 6-1 6-2.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CRO
Age 45
Left-Handed
168 cm / 5'6"
H2H
1
–
1
2 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 28, 2005* | Budapest | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | 6-1 6-2 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| May 9, 2002* | Warsaw | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 6-4 6-0 | Jelena Kostanic Tosic | 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 Kostanic Tosic | #937 | #32 | 900 | 1,726 | 112 | 151 | 42.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Kostanic Tosic | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1998 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #240 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1999 | 4–5 | 44.4% | #97 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2000 | 10–13 | 43.5% | #114 | 1,523 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #131 | 1,559 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 14–17 | 45.2% | #70 | 1,570 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2003 | 16–20 | 44.4% | #66 | 1,621 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #35 | 1,678 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2005 | 11–21 | 34.4% | #87 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2006 | 19–18 | 51.4% | #51 | 1,577 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #103 | 1,534 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2008 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #114 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2010 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #830 | 1,460 | 0 | 0 | 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 |