H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Nathalie Dechy vs Emilie Loit H2H: 1-0
Nathalie Dechy holds a 1–0 lead over Emilie Loit in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Nathalie Dechy leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Nathalie Dechy won the 2005 Indian Wells second round 6-2 4-6 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.
FRA
Age 47
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 11, 2005* | Indian Wells | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Nathalie Dechy | 6-2 4-6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nathalie Dechy | #88 | #11 | 1,773 | 1,917 | 291 | 270 | 51.9% | 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 | Nathalie Dechy | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 16 | 1995 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #237 | 1,481 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1996 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #84 | 1,501 | 0 | 0 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 1997 | 6–11 | 35.3% | #73 | 1,539 | 0 | 0 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1998 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #50 | 1,619 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1999 | 32–23 | 58.2% | #25 | 1,790 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2000 | 28–19 | 59.6% | #26 | 1,777 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2001 | 21–25 | 45.7% | #43 | 1,626 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2002 | 33–24 | 57.9% | #20 | 1,770 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2003 | 31–18 | 63.3% | #29 | 1,819 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2004 | 33–23 | 58.9% | #21 | 1,810 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2005 | 40–26 | 60.6% | #12 | 1,798 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2006 | 16–25 | 39.0% | #48 | 1,649 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2007 | 16–19 | 45.7% | #68 | 1,651 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2008 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #69 | 1,670 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2009 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #88 | 1,582 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |