H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Nadia Petrova vs Emilie Loit H2H: 1-0
Nadia Petrova holds a 1–0 lead over Emilie Loit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Nadia Petrova leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Nadia Petrova won the 2004 Miami third round 6-1 6-3.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
RUS
Age 44
Right-Handed
178 cm / 5'10"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 27, 2004* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R32 | Hard | Nadia Petrova | 6-1 6-3 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nadia Petrova | #578 | #3 | 3,882 | 2,077 | 441 | 276 | 61.5% | 0 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 13 |
| 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 | Nadia Petrova | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1998 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #145 | 1,536 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1999 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #93 | 1,568 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2000 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #60 | 1,624 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 20–21 | 48.8% | #39 | 1,682 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 7–5 | 58.3% | #112 | 1,758 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2003 | 36–20 | 64.3% | #12 | 1,924 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2004 | 39–24 | 61.9% | #12 | 1,880 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2005 | 56–25 | 69.1% | #9 | 1,945 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2006 | 48–19 | 71.6% | #6 | 1,990 | 0 | 6 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #14 | 1,931 | 0 | 7 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2008 | 47–24 | 66.2% | #11 | 1,923 | 0 | 9 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2009 | 30–21 | 58.8% | #20 | 1,821 | 0 | 9 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2010 | 32–20 | 61.5% | #15 | 1,828 | 0 | 9 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2011 | 25–21 | 54.3% | #29 | 1,781 | 0 | 10 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2012 | 37–18 | 67.3% | #12 | 1,917 | 0 | 13 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2013 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #104 | 1,718 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2014 | 1–5 | 16.7% | #362 | 1,648 | 0 | 13 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |