H2H data updated: 2026-07-18 14:16 UTC
Milos Raonic vs Bjorn Phau H2H: 1-0
Milos Raonic holds a 1–0 lead over Bjorn Phau in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Milos Raonic leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Milos Raonic won the 2011 Australian Open first round 7-6(3) 6-3 7-6(8).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CAN
Age 35
Right-Handed
196 cm / 6'5"
H2H
1
–
0
1 main draw meetings
GER
Age 46
Right-Handed
175 cm / 5'9"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 19, 2011* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Milos Raonic | 7-6(3) 6-3 7-6(8) | Bjorn Phau | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milos Raonic | #634 | #3 | 5,450 | 2,246 | 369 | 186 | 66.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Bjorn Phau | #1,098 | #59 | 1,038 | 1,733 | 80 | 138 | 36.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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 | Milos Raonic | Bjorn Phau | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #373 | 1,535 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #438 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2010 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #156 | 1,651 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #323 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2011 | 30–18 | 62.5% | #31 | 1,839 | 0 | 1 | 2000 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #208 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2012 | 42–20 | 67.7% | #13 | 1,987 | 0 | 3 | 2001 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #183 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2013 | 41–21 | 66.1% | #11 | 2,034 | 0 | 5 | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #148 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2014 | 47–20 | 70.1% | #8 | 2,087 | 0 | 6 | 2003 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #158 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2015 | 32–15 | 68.1% | #14 | 2,047 | 0 | 7 | 2004 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #136 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2016 | 52–19 | 73.2% | #3 | 2,143 | 0 | 8 | 2005 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #87 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2017 | 29–14 | 67.4% | #24 | 2,053 | 0 | 8 | 2006 | 16–26 | 38.1% | #77 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2018 | 31–18 | 63.3% | #18 | 1,952 | 0 | 8 | 2007 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #183 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2019 | 23–13 | 63.9% | #31 | 1,919 | 0 | 8 | 2008 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #120 | 1,663 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2020 | 23–10 | 69.7% | #14 | 1,996 | 0 | 8 | 2009 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #111 | 1,655 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2021 | 6–4 | 60.0% | #70 | 1,964 | 0 | 8 | 2010 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #102 | 1,620 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2011 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #156 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2023 | 4–4 | 50.0% | #317 | 1,909 | 0 | 8 | 2012 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #75 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | 2024 | 6–5 | 54.5% | #238 | 1,903 | 0 | 8 | 2013 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #316 | 1,641 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #371 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 |