H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Meghann Shaughnessy vs Emilie Loit H2H: 3-0
Meghann Shaughnessy holds a 3–0 lead over Emilie Loit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Meghann Shaughnessy leads 2–0 on hard courts and 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Meghann Shaughnessy won the 2007 Rome second round 6-3 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.
USA
Age 47
Right-Handed
180 cm / 5'11"
H2H
3
–
0
3 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 16, 2007* | Rome | WTA 1000 | R64 | Clay | Meghann Shaughnessy | 6-3 6-2 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Jan 11, 2003* | Canberra | WTA 250 | SF | Hard | Meghann Shaughnessy | 6-1 7-5 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Mar 10, 2001* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Meghann Shaughnessy | 6-2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meghann Shaughnessy | #1,104 | #11 | 1,949 | 1,888 | 233 | 233 | 50.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| 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 | Meghann Shaughnessy | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 17 | 1996 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #165 | 1,512 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #198 | 1,499 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 8–9 | 47.1% | #69 | 1,544 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 10–22 | 31.2% | #99 | 1,439 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 23–20 | 53.5% | #38 | 1,652 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 45–25 | 64.3% | #12 | 1,825 | 0 | 2 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 29–27 | 51.8% | #30 | 1,716 | 0 | 2 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #17 | 1,725 | 0 | 3 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 20–22 | 47.6% | #40 | 1,663 | 0 | 3 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2005 | 17–25 | 40.5% | #66 | 1,563 | 0 | 3 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2006 | 27–20 | 57.4% | #37 | 1,709 | 0 | 5 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2007 | 18–22 | 45.0% | #52 | 1,666 | 0 | 6 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2008 | 0–5 | 0.0% | #836 | 1,579 | 0 | 6 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2009 | 1–8 | 11.1% | #590 | 1,533 | 0 | 6 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |