H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 02:15 UTC
Melinda Czink vs Emilie Loit H2H: 1-2
Emilie Loit holds a 2–1 lead over Melinda Czink in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, Emilie Loit leads 2–0 on clay, while Melinda Czink leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Melinda Czink won the 2005 Tashkent third round 7-5 6-0.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
HUN
Age 43
Left-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
2
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 6, 2005* | Tashkent | WTA 250 | R32 | Hard | Melinda Czink | 7-5 6-0 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Feb 24, 2005* | Acapulco | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 6-4 6-0 | Melinda Czink | Match data |
| Feb 17, 2005* | Bogota | WTA 500 | R32 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 6-4 6-1 | Melinda Czink | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Melinda Czink | #691 | #37 | 1,571 | 1,794 | 89 | 136 | 39.6% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 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 | Melinda Czink | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2003 | 4–3 | 57.1% | #79 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2004 | 2–15 | 11.8% | #128 | 1,427 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2005 | 9–12 | 42.9% | #96 | 1,478 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2006 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #105 | 1,500 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2007 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #124 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2008 | 10–11 | 47.6% | #106 | 1,558 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2009 | 29–21 | 58.0% | #37 | 1,741 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2010 | 3–16 | 15.8% | #312 | 1,524 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2011 | 3–6 | 33.3% | #143 | 1,519 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2012 | 9–16 | 36.0% | #94 | 1,543 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2013 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #254 | 1,499 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |