Players

Match		Sets	Attack					Serve						Set
m	opponent/sets	sp	k	k/s	e	ta	pct	pts	sa	se	sa/s	ta	pct	a	a/s	ta	pct	pts	rating
3	Quincy W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	8	1	3	0.20	19	.842	6	1.20	15	.400	1.0	6.89
7	Burlington L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1	2	0.33	11	.818	7	2.33	11	.636	1.0	4.05
9	Baton Rouge W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	1	0.00	7	.857	5	1.67	8	.625	0.0	5.95
11	Cincinnati L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	0	0.00	4	1.000	1	0.33	4	.250	0.0	4.70
15	Dallas L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	0	0.00	8	1.000	4	1.00	9	.444	0.0	4.53
17	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1	0	0.33	9	1.000	4	1.33	7	.571	1.0	5.73
26	Tucson L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	8	1	4	0.25	17	.765	4	1.00	8	.500	1.0	5.35
31	Arlington L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	1	0.00	10	.900	1	0.25	4	.250	0.0	5.65
34	Alton L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	5	.400	0.0	5.98
41	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	2	0.00	7	.714	2	0.67	3	.667	0.0	4.23
Total		35	.	.	.	.	.	27	4	13	0.11	92	.859	36	1.03	74	.486	4.0	5.31

Match		Sets	Block					Dig		Receive
m	opponent/sets	sp	s	a	t	be	blk/s	d	d/s	3	rt	rcv	e	pct	pts	rating
3	Quincy W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	18	3.60	15	2.00	32	4	.875	1.0	6.89
7	Burlington L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	12	2.26	23	1	.957	1.0	4.05
9	Baton Rouge W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.33	12	2.50	22	0	1.000	0.0	5.95
11	Cincinnati L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	8	2.19	16	0	1.000	0.0	4.70
15	Dallas L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.75	12	2.15	26	2	.923	0.0	4.53
17	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	6	2.21	14	0	1.000	1.0	5.73
26	Tucson L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.75	21	2.20	40	1	.975	1.0	5.35
31	Arlington L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.00	15	2.62	21	1	.952	0.0	5.65
34	Alton L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.33	10	2.67	15	0	1.000	0.0	5.98
41	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	9	2.35	17	0	1.000	0.0	4.23
Total		35	.	.	.	.	.	57	1.63	120	2.28	226	9	.960	4.0	5.31