H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Jie Zheng vs Emilie Loit H2H: 2-0
Jie Zheng holds a 2–0 lead over Emilie Loit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Jie Zheng leads 1–0 on clay and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Jie Zheng won the 2008 Indian Wells first round 6-0 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CHN
Age 43
Right-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H
2
–
0
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 11, 2008* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Jie Zheng | 6-0 6-1 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| May 27, 2004* | Roland Garros | Grand Slam | R64 | Clay | Jie Zheng | 6-4 6-1 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jie Zheng | #961 | #15 | 2,745 | 1,898 | 216 | 193 | 52.8% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| 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 | Jie Zheng | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2002 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #185 | 1,507 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2003 | 7–8 | 46.7% | #84 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2004 | 10–17 | 37.0% | #79 | 1,551 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2005 | 24–15 | 61.5% | #44 | 1,705 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2006 | 25–16 | 61.0% | #33 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2007 | 7–10 | 41.2% | #163 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2008 | 20–10 | 66.7% | #25 | 1,838 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2009 | 27–21 | 56.2% | #35 | 1,779 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2010 | 23–18 | 56.1% | #26 | 1,760 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2011 | 18–23 | 43.9% | #48 | 1,705 | 0 | 3 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2012 | 25–23 | 52.1% | #26 | 1,658 | 0 | 4 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2013 | 17–17 | 50.0% | #53 | 1,688 | 0 | 4 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2014 | 12–13 | 48.0% | #91 | 1,670 | 0 | 4 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2015 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #962 | 1,648 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |