H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 14:15 UTC
Tathiana Garbin vs Emilie Loit H2H: 0-1
Emilie Loit holds a 1–0 lead over Tathiana Garbin in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on clay. Most recently, Emilie Loit won the 2001 Budapest fourth round 6-4 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.
ITA
Age 49
Right-Handed
172 cm / 5'8"
H2H
0
–
1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 20, 2001* | Budapest | WTA 250 | R16 | Clay | Emilie Loit | 6-4 6-3 | Tathiana Garbin | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tathiana Garbin | #86 | #22 | 1,255 | 1,710 | 167 | 207 | 44.7% | 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 | Tathiana Garbin | 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 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1998 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #121 | 1,476 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 1999 | 5–9 | 35.7% | #126 | 1,468 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2000 | 23–19 | 54.8% | #42 | 1,629 | 0 | 1 | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2001 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #91 | 1,577 | 0 | 1 | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2002 | 18–17 | 51.4% | #71 | 1,600 | 0 | 1 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | 2003 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #82 | 1,557 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2004 | 11–18 | 37.9% | #58 | 1,535 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2005 | 13–19 | 40.6% | #85 | 1,557 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2006 | 15–15 | 50.0% | #38 | 1,628 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2007 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #36 | 1,647 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2008 | 14–20 | 41.2% | #55 | 1,564 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2009 | 13–16 | 44.8% | #59 | 1,597 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2010 | 9–17 | 34.6% | #87 | 1,575 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2011 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #86 | 1,569 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |