H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Jill Craybas vs Emma Laine H2H: 0-1
Emma Laine holds a 1–0 lead over Jill Craybas in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Emma Laine leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Emma Laine won the 2006 Indian Wells second round 7-5 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.
USA
Age 52
Right-Handed
160 cm / 5'3"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
FIN
Age 40
Left-Handed
164 cm / 5'5"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 8, 2006* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Emma Laine | 7-5 6-1 | Jill Craybas | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jill Craybas | #336 | #39 | 974 | 1,695 | 161 | 256 | 38.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Emma Laine | #1,001 | #50 | 429 | 1,578 | 21 | 38 | 35.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Jill Craybas | Emma Laine | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #843 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #870 | 1,472 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2004 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #166 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #92 | 1,505 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2006 | 13–22 | 37.1% | #74 | 1,526 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1996 | 0–1 | 0.0% | — | 1,488 | 0 | 0 | 2007 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #247 | 1,493 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2008 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #399 | 1,504 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #154 | 1,473 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 24 | 1999 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,445 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 25 | 2000 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #145 | 1,449 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 26 | 2001 | 8–17 | 32.0% | #98 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 27 | 2002 | 19–15 | 55.9% | #57 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 28 | 2003 | 16–22 | 42.1% | #99 | 1,568 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 29 | 2004 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #59 | 1,499 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 30 | 2005 | 19–23 | 45.2% | #48 | 1,614 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 31 | 2006 | 18–25 | 41.9% | #70 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2007 | 12–27 | 30.8% | #79 | 1,472 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2008 | 22–25 | 46.8% | #64 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2009 | 12–21 | 36.4% | #76 | 1,592 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2010 | 12–23 | 34.3% | #98 | 1,546 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2011 | 6–20 | 23.1% | #150 | 1,442 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 37 | 2012 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #189 | 1,449 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 38 | 2013 | 1–2 | 33.3% | #336 | 1,451 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |