H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 02:51 UTC
Sybille Bammer vs Emilie Loit H2H: 1-2
Emilie Loit holds a 2–1 lead over Sybille Bammer in their WTA head-to-head. Across 3 main-draw meetings, they are tied 1–1 on hard courts, while Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Sybille Bammer won the 2007 Toronto second round 6-1 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.
AUT
Age 46
Left-Handed
174 cm / 5'9"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 13, 2007 | Toronto | WTA 1000 | R64 | Hard | Sybille Bammer | 6-1 6-2 | Emilie Loit | Match data |
| Mar 20, 2007* | Miami | WTA 1000 | R128 | Hard | Emilie Loit | 2-6 6-3 6-1 | Sybille Bammer | Match data |
| May 5, 2005* | Rabat | WTA 250 | R32 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 7-6(5) 6-3 | Sybille Bammer | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sybille Bammer | #161 | #19 | 2,014 | 1,844 | 130 | 139 | 48.3% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 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 | Sybille Bammer | 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 | 2000 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #294 | 1,487 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #148 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2004 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #175 | 1,441 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2005 | 5–7 | 41.7% | #77 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2006 | 19–26 | 42.2% | #49 | 1,569 | 0 | 0 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2007 | 43–24 | 64.2% | #19 | 1,780 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2008 | 24–24 | 50.0% | #26 | 1,682 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2009 | 21–23 | 47.7% | #54 | 1,662 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2010 | 15–19 | 44.1% | #68 | 1,646 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2011 | 3–9 | 25.0% | #161 | 1,569 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |