H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Lucie Safarova vs Emilie Loit H2H: 1-1
Lucie Safarova and Emilie Loit are tied 1–1 in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on grass, while Lucie Safarova leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Emilie Loit won the 2008 Wimbledon first round 6-3 7-6(4).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CZE
Age 39
Left-Handed
177 cm / 5'10"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 2008* | Wimbledon | Grand Slam | R128 | Grass | Emilie Loit | 6-3 7-6(4) | Lucie Safarova | Match data |
| Mar 21, 2007* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Lucie Safarova | 6-0 7-5 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lucie Safarova | #1,269 | #5 | 4,055 | 1,929 | 351 | 270 | 56.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| 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 | Lucie Safarova | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2005 | 15–9 | 62.5% | #47 | 1,665 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2006 | 21–21 | 50.0% | #42 | 1,625 | 0 | 3 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2007 | 28–16 | 63.6% | #23 | 1,778 | 0 | 3 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2008 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #63 | 1,640 | 0 | 4 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2009 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #41 | 1,768 | 0 | 4 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2010 | 27–23 | 54.0% | #33 | 1,722 | 0 | 4 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2011 | 34–23 | 59.6% | #25 | 1,797 | 0 | 4 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2012 | 27–22 | 55.1% | #17 | 1,771 | 0 | 4 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2013 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #29 | 1,797 | 0 | 5 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2014 | 36–23 | 61.0% | #16 | 1,858 | 0 | 5 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2015 | 31–21 | 59.6% | #9 | 1,829 | 0 | 6 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #62 | 1,696 | 0 | 7 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2017 | 35–19 | 64.8% | #30 | 1,791 | 0 | 7 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2018 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #105 | 1,754 | 0 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |