2018 Wimbledon Championships – Girls' Doubles

Girls' Doubles
	2018 Wimbledon Championships
Champions	Wang Xinyu; Wang Xiyu
Runners-up	Caty McNally; Whitney Osuigwe
Final score	6–2, 6–1

Olga Danilović and Kaja Juvan were the defending champions, but both players chose not to participate.

Wang Xinyu and Wang Xiyu won the title, defeating Caty McNally and Whitney Osuigwe in the final, 6–2, 6–1.

Seeds

Wang Xinyu / Wang Xiyu (Champions)
Caty McNally / Whitney Osuigwe (Final)
Eléonora Molinaro / Clara Tauson (First round)
María Lourdes Carlé / Cori Gauff (Semifinals)
Joanna Garland / Liang En-shuo (Quarterfinals)
Yuki Naito / Naho Sato (Second round)
Georgia Drummy / Alexa Noel (Quarterfinals)
Clara Burel / Diane Parry (Quarterfinals)

Draw

Key

Finals

Semifinals				Final


1	Wang Xinyu Wang Xiyu	6	6

4	María Lourdes Carlé Cori Gauff	4	2
				1	Wang Xinyu Wang Xiyu	6	6

				2	Caty McNally Whitney Osuigwe	2	1
	Dalayna Hewitt Peyton Stearns	2	5

2	Caty McNally Whitney Osuigwe	6	7

Top half

First Round					Second Round					Quarterfinals				Semifinals

1	Wang Xinyu Wang Xiyu	6	6
	Natasha Subhash Katie Volynets	2	2		1	Xin Wang Xiy Wang	6	6
	Leonie Küng Joanne Züger	6	6			L Küng J Züger	2	0
	Ana Makatsaria Lea Ma	4	4							1	Xin Wang Xiy Wang	6	6
WC	Sonay Kartal Erin Richardson	7	5	6						5	J Garland E-s Liang	4	2
	Loudmilla Bencheikh Manon Léonard	5	7	4	WC	S Kartal E Richardson	5	5
	Mariam Dalakishvili Sada Nahimana	2	4		5	J Garland E-s Liang	7	7
5	Joanna Garland Liang En-shuo	6	6											1	Xin Wang Xiy Wang	6	6
4	María Lourdes Carlé Cori Gauff	6	6											4	ML Carlé C Gauff	4	2
	María Camila Osorio Serrano María Gabriela Rivera Corado	3	1		4	ML Carlé C Gauff	7⁷	6
	Hurricane Tyra Black Ana Geller	4	2			S Lansere K Rakhimova	6⁴	1
	Sofya Lansere Kamilla Rakhimova	6	6							4	ML Carlé C Gauff	7	6
WC	Victoria Allen Destinee Martins	6	7							WC	V Allen D Martins	5	3
	Violet Apisah Lulu Sun	1	5		WC	V Allen D Martins	4	6	6
	Elina Avanesyan Caijsa Wilda Hennemann	0	6⁵		6	Y Naito N Sato	6	4	2
6	Yuki Naito Naho Sato	6	7⁷

Bottom half

First Round					Second Round				Quarterfinals				Semifinals

8	Clara Burel Diane Parry	6	6
	Marta Custic Zheng Qinwen	4	4		8	C Burel D Parry	6	6
WC	Danielle Daley Tanysha Dissanayake	2	2			LA Fernandez G Price	4	4
	Leylah Annie Fernandez Gabriella Price	6	6						8	C Burel D Parry	3	5
	Daria Frayman Federica Rossi	6⁹	0							D Hewitt P Stearns	6	7
	Dalayna Hewitt Peyton Stearns	7¹¹	6			D Hewitt P Stearns	7	7⁷
	Thasaporn Naklo Mananchaya Sawangkaew	2	7⁷	6		T Naklo M Sawangkaew	5	6⁴
3	Eléonora Molinaro Clara Tauson	6	6⁴	3										D Hewitt P Stearns	2	5
7	Georgia Drummy Alexa Noel	6	6										2	C McNally W Osuigwe	6	7
	Viktoryia Kanapatskaya Lenka Stará	3	2		7	G Drummy A Noel	6	6
	Elisabetta Cocciaretto Nika Radišič	3	6⁵		WC	A Bissett M Cross	2	3
WC	Amelia Bissett Morgan Cross	6	7⁷						7	G Drummy A Noel	5	5
	Adrienn Nagy Stefania Rogozińska Dzik	5	2						2	C McNally W Osuigwe	7	7
	Francesca Curmi Viktoriia Dema	7	6			F Curmi V Dema	4	1
	Gergana Topalova Daniela Vismane	1	2		2	C McNally W Osuigwe	6	6
2	Caty McNally Whitney Osuigwe	6	6

gollark: For purposes only, you understand.

gollark: There are lots of *imaginable* and *claimed* gods, so I'm saying "gods".

gollark: So basically, the "god must exist because the universe is complex" thing ignores the fact that it... isn't really... and that gods would be pretty complex too, and does not answer any questions usefully because it just pushes off the question of why things exist to why *god* exists.

gollark: To randomly interject very late, I don't agree with your reasoning here. As far as physicists can tell, while pretty complex and hard for humans to understand, relative to some other things the universe runs on simple rules - you can probably describe the way it works in maybe a book's worth of material assuming quite a lot of mathematical background. Which is less than you might need for, say, a particularly complex modern computer system. You know what else is quite complex? Gods. They are generally portrayed as acting fairly similarly to humans (humans like modelling other things as basically-humans and writing human-centric stories), and even apart from that are clearly meant to be intelligent agents of some kind. Both of those are complicated - the human genome is something like 6GB, a good deal of which probably codes for brain things. As for other intelligent things, despite having tons of data once trained, modern machine learning things are admittedly not very complex to *describe*, but nobody knows what an architecture for general intelligence would look like.

gollark: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/348702212110680064/896356765267025940/FB_IMG_1633757163544.jpg

External links

Draw

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.