Wimbledon 2012: Bernard Tomic Loss to Lead to Ranking Plunge
Julian Finney/Getty Images
Bernard Tomic made major headlines at Wimbledon in 2011, as he stormed through to the tournament's quarterfinals as an 18-year-old beating fifth-seeded Robin Soderling en route.
However Tomic is making headlines at Wimbledon 2012 for the wrong reasons. The 19-year-old Aussie is out in the first round at the hands of wild-card David Goffin of Belgium.
Due to the early round exit, Tomic will see his ranking plunge when it is updated following the fortnight of tennis at the All England Club.
Last season at Wimbledon, Tomic picked up 385 ranking points for making the quarters—360 for his wins in the main draw plus 25 for his results in the qualifying tournament.
This season he will only get 10 ranking points for his first-round loss, which will result in a net loss of 375 ranking points.
What does that mean, exactly?
Tomic is currently ranked 28th in the world with 1255 ranking points. Losing 375 will have him at 880 ranking points following Wimbledon. That amount of ranking points should keep him in the top 50 on tour—but only barely.
Look for Tomic to be ranked about 47th or 48th in the world when the rankings update following Wimbledon. Without a strong hard court season, the Aussie could very well be unseeded at Flushing Meadows later this year.
For Goffin, the victory is evidence that his run to the French Open round of 16 earlier this month was not just a flash in the pan. Just 21 years old himself, he may be a player of substance. He has earned himself a reasonable draw at Wimbledon 2012.
I think Goffin will beat Jesse Levine in the second round. After that, the Belgian may face Mardy Fish—another quarterfinalist from last season.
I also think that Goffin will give Fish a good run for his money, as the American has not played well in 2012. The top 50 might not be that far off for the Belgian—a player who looks a little under-rated at this point.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?