2003 Ordina Open – Women's Doubles

Catherine Barclay and Martina Müller were the defending champions but Müller did not enter this year, as she competed at the Qualifying rounds of the Wimbledon Championships during the same week. Barclay teamed up with Nannie de Villiers and lost in first round to tournament runners-up Nadia Petrova and Mary Pierce.

Women's Doubles
2003 Ordina Open
Champions Elena Dementieva
Lina Krasnoroutskaya
Runners-up Nadia Petrova
Mary Pierce
Final score2–6, 6–3, 6–4
Draw16
Seeds4

Elena Dementieva and Lina Krasnoroutskaya won the title by defeating Nadia Petrova and Mary Pierce 2–6, 6–3, 6–4 in the final.[1]

Seeds

  1. Virginia Ruano Pascual / Paola Suárez (Quarterfinals)
  2. Tina Križan / Katarina Srebotnik (Semifinals, retired due to a lumbar strain on Križan)
  3. Elena Dementieva / Lina Krasnoroutskaya (Champions)
  4. Els Callens / Émilie Loit (First round)

Draw

Key

Draw

First Round Quarterfinals Semifinals Final
1 V Ruano Pascual
P Suárez
6 6
D Haak
K Kilsdonk
2 1 1 V Ruano Pascual
P Suárez
4 4
C Barclay
N de Villiers
3 3 N Petrova
M Pierce
6 6
N Petrova
M Pierce
6 6 N Petrova
M Pierce
6 6
4 E Callens
É Loit
4 5 A Jidkova
B Rittner
3 3
A Jidkova
B Rittner
6 7 A Jidkova
B Rittner
6 7
R Grande
A Widjaja
6 6 R Grande
A Widjaja
4 5
A Harkleroad
R de los Ríos
4 4 N Petrova
M Pierce
6 3 4
M Matevžič
H Nagyová
6 6 3 E Dementieva
L Krasnoroutskaya
2 6 6
L McShea
I Selyutina
2 2 M Matevžič
H Nagyová
3 62
N Pratt
I Tulyaganova
4 6 61 3 E Dementieva
L Krasnoroutskaya
6 77
3 E Dementieva
L Krasnoroutskaya
6 2 77 3 E Dementieva
L Krasnoroutskaya
77
A Rodionova
M Weingärtner
1 4 2 T Križan
K Srebotnik
65 r
T Musgrave
A Spears
6 6 T Musgrave
A Spears
3 6 2
M Bartoli
S Cohen-Aloro
5 1 2 T Križan
K Srebotnik
6 3 6
2 T Križan
K Srebotnik
7 6
gollark: There are plenty of applications where you can get away with "looks pretty much okay", too.
gollark: Well, you can ask people to not put irrelevant random images in, but they'll probably do it for some stupid reason, and it's good if they can at least be mildly more efficient about it.
gollark: There's JPEG-XL or something, which will apparently allow *lossless* higher-efficiency representation of existing JPEGs. Very exciting.
gollark: Consider all those annoying mostly irrelevant images in articles. Those don't really need to actually be very high quality, and if you can lossily compress them to 20KB or so you can really shave off loading times.
gollark: Although vector graphics would often be nicer, they're not always practical.

References

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