H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 19:16 UTC
Rajeev Ram vs Bjorn Phau H2H: 1-0
Rajeev Ram holds a 1–0 lead over Bjorn Phau in their ATP head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Rajeev Ram leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Rajeev Ram won the 2010 Johannesburg fourth round 7-6(10) 7-6(2).
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
USA
Age 42
Right-Handed
193 cm / 6'4"
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 5, 2010* | Johannesburg | ATP 250 | R16 | Hard | Rajeev Ram | 7-6(10) 7-6(2) | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rajeev Ram | #1,076 | #56 | 826 | 1,747 | 57 | 94 | 37.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 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 | Rajeev Ram | Bjorn Phau | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 18 | 2002 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #536 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | 1998 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #438 | 1,488 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2003 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #437 | 1,492 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #323 | 1,540 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2004 | 1–3 | 25.0% | #297 | 1,474 | 0 | 0 | 2000 | 0–4 | 0.0% | #208 | 1,520 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2005 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #195 | 1,490 | 0 | 0 | 2001 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #183 | 1,579 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | 2006 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #197 | 1,457 | 0 | 0 | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #148 | 1,503 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | 2007 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #253 | 1,417 | 0 | 0 | 2003 | 1–4 | 20.0% | #158 | 1,519 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | 2008 | 2–4 | 33.3% | #190 | 1,479 | 0 | 0 | 2004 | 5–4 | 55.6% | #136 | 1,549 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2009 | 8–6 | 57.1% | #79 | 1,579 | 0 | 1 | 2005 | 10–14 | 41.7% | #87 | 1,636 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 2010 | 6–18 | 25.0% | #184 | 1,590 | 0 | 1 | 2006 | 16–26 | 38.1% | #77 | 1,533 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | 2011 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #149 | 1,605 | 0 | 1 | 2007 | 4–10 | 28.6% | #183 | 1,562 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | 2012 | 7–9 | 43.8% | #132 | 1,635 | 0 | 1 | 2008 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #120 | 1,663 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | 2013 | 4–11 | 26.7% | #127 | 1,646 | 0 | 1 | 2009 | 12–17 | 41.4% | #111 | 1,655 | 0 | 0 |
| 30 | 2014 | 3–7 | 30.0% | #139 | 1,660 | 0 | 1 | 2010 | 9–13 | 40.9% | #102 | 1,620 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | 2015 | 7–6 | 53.8% | #89 | 1,654 | 0 | 2 | 2011 | 2–7 | 22.2% | #156 | 1,609 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | 2016 | 12–19 | 38.7% | #129 | 1,615 | 0 | 2 | 2012 | 7–14 | 33.3% | #75 | 1,656 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | 2017 | 2–2 | 50.0% | #353 | 1,582 | 0 | 2 | 2013 | 2–6 | 25.0% | #316 | 1,641 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2014 | 3–2 | 60.0% | #371 | 1,699 | 0 | 0 |