H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Mary Pierce vs Emilie Loit H2H: 2-0
Mary Pierce holds a 2–0 lead over Emilie Loit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 2 main-draw meetings, Mary Pierce leads 1–0 on carpet and 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Mary Pierce won the 2006 Paris quarterfinal 7-6(6) 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.
FRA
Age 51
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 11, 2006* | Paris | WTA 500 | QF | Carpet | Mary Pierce | 7-6(6) 7-6(4) | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Sep 1, 2004* | US Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Mary Pierce | 6-1 6-2 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mary Pierce | #560 | #3 | 3,797 | 2,137 | 460 | 215 | 68.1% | 2 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 18 |
| 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 | Mary Pierce | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 14 | 1989 | 0–3 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,480 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 15 | 1990 | 6–7 | 46.2% | #107 | 1,543 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1991 | 21–9 | 70.0% | #26 | 1,786 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1992 | 31–9 | 77.5% | #13 | 1,901 | 0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1993 | 38–15 | 71.7% | #12 | 2,003 | 0 | 5 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1994 | 43–16 | 72.9% | #5 | 2,053 | 0 | 5 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1995 | 35–14 | 71.4% | #5 | 2,008 | 1 | 7 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1996 | 17–11 | 60.7% | #24 | 1,899 | 1 | 7 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1997 | 45–15 | 75.0% | #7 | 2,053 | 1 | 8 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 1998 | 35–12 | 74.5% | #7 | 2,120 | 1 | 12 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 1999 | 45–19 | 70.3% | #5 | 2,053 | 1 | 13 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2000 | 29–11 | 72.5% | #7 | 2,033 | 2 | 15 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2001 | 6–8 | 42.9% | #129 | 1,839 | 2 | 15 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2002 | 14–13 | 51.9% | #52 | 1,752 | 2 | 15 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2003 | 23–17 | 57.5% | #33 | 1,786 | 2 | 15 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2004 | 22–16 | 57.9% | #29 | 1,754 | 2 | 16 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2005 | 41–12 | 77.4% | #5 | 2,119 | 2 | 18 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2006 | 9–8 | 52.9% | #79 | 1,967 | 2 | 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |