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
2	Baton Rouge L (2–3 sets)	5	3	0.60	0	6	.500	10	0	4	0.00	23	.826	45	9.00	92	.489	5.0	5.95
4	New Orleans L (1–3 sets)	4	2	0.50	0	3	.667	5	1	4	0.25	15	.733	48	12.00	84	.571	4.0	7.00
6	Columbia L (1–3 sets)	4	3	0.75	1	9	.222	5	0	1	0.00	17	.941	51	12.75	84	.607	3.5	7.78
7	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	0	4	.250	2	1	1	0.33	9	.889	31	10.33	62	.500	3.0	5.47
12	Quincy L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	4	0.00	9	.556	26	8.67	63	.413	0.0	2.96
13	New Orleans L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	6	.000	2	0	2	0.00	11	.818	34	11.33	65	.523	1.5	5.83
17	Mendon L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	1	3	-.333	4	0	2	0.00	13	.846	33	11.00	64	.516	0.0	4.60
29	Teutopolis W (3–0 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	1	.000	8	1	1	0.33	16	.938	38	12.67	67	.567	1.0	7.86
35	Arlington L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	3	.000	5	0	3	0.00	14	.786	31	10.33	65	.477	0.0	5.32
40	San Jose W (3–2 sets)	5	5	1.00	1	10	.400	9	0	3	0.00	22	.864	56	11.20	126	.444	6.0	7.25
45	Sheboygan W (3–1 sets)	4	0	0.00	0	4	.000	10	4	3	1.00	22	.864	48	12.00	80	.600	5.5	7.77
Total		40	14	0.35	3	49	.224	62	7	28	0.18	171	.836	441	11.03	852	.518	29.5	6.16

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
2	Baton Rouge L (2–3 sets)	5	0	4	4	0	0.80	7	1.40	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	5.95
4	New Orleans L (1–3 sets)	4	1	0	1	0	0.25	4	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	7.00
6	Columbia L (1–3 sets)	4	0	1	1	0	0.25	2	0.50	.	.	.	.	.	3.5	7.78
7	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	5.47
12	Quincy L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	0.0	2.96
13	New Orleans L (0–3 sets)	3	1	1	2	0	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	1.5	5.83
17	Mendon L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	0.0	4.60
29	Teutopolis W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.33	.	.	.	.	.	1.0	7.86
35	Arlington L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	.	.	.	.	.	0.0	5.32
40	San Jose W (3–2 sets)	5	0	2	2	0	0.40	7	1.40	.	.	.	.	.	6.0	7.25
45	Sheboygan W (3–1 sets)	4	0	3	3	0	0.75	4	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	5.5	7.77
Total		40	2	13	15	0	0.38	36	0.90	.	.	.	.	.	29.5	6.16