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
1	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	2	0.67	1	4	.250	0	0	1	0.00	8	.875	22	7.33	62	.355	3.0	3.55
6	Dallas L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	1	3	.000	3	0	2	0.00	10	.800	23	7.67	63	.365	2.5	4.60
9	Alton L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	1	3	-.333	1	0	0	0.00	7	1.000	24	8.00	68	.353	0.5	2.94
12	Ames L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	0	1	1.000	6	1	2	0.33	14	.857	29	9.67	70	.414	2.0	5.30
15	Denali L (2–3 sets)	5	2	0.40	1	6	.167	4	1	3	0.20	17	.824	53	10.60	106	.500	4.5	6.08
18	San Jose W (3–1 sets)	4	3	0.75	0	6	.500	4	0	3	0.00	15	.800	52	13.00	85	.612	4.5	9.18
21	Columbia W (3–1 sets)	4	1	0.25	1	7	.000	5	1	3	0.25	16	.813	45	11.25	79	.570	2.0	6.00
25	Cincinnati L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	0	5	.200	5	2	2	0.67	14	.857	29	9.67	59	.492	3.5	5.46
30	Antioch L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	0	3	.333	2	1	3	0.33	9	.667	28	9.33	57	.491	2.5	4.58
35	Albuquerque W (3–1 sets)	4	1	0.25	1	5	.000	15	1	3	0.25	25	.880	47	11.75	102	.461	6.5	8.70
40	Teutopolis L (1–3 sets)	4	1	0.25	0	5	.200	9	2	1	0.50	19	.947	47	11.75	97	.485	4.5	7.82
Total		39	14	0.36	6	48	.167	54	9	23	0.23	154	.851	399	10.23	848	.471	36.0	5.84

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
1	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	3.55
6	Dallas L (0–3 sets)	3	0	3	3	0	1.00	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	2.5	4.60
9	Alton L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	0.5	2.94
12	Ames L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	.	.	.	.	.	2.0	5.30
15	Denali L (2–3 sets)	5	0	3	3	0	0.60	8	1.60	.	.	.	.	.	4.5	6.08
18	San Jose W (3–1 sets)	4	0	3	3	0	0.75	7	1.75	.	.	.	.	.	4.5	9.18
21	Columbia W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	8	2.00	.	.	.	.	.	2.0	6.00
25	Cincinnati L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	4	1.33	.	.	.	.	.	3.5	5.46
30	Antioch L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	2.5	4.58
35	Albuquerque W (3–1 sets)	4	1	7	8	0	2.00	5	1.25	.	.	.	.	.	6.5	8.70
40	Teutopolis L (1–3 sets)	4	1	1	2	1	0.50	8	2.00	.	.	.	.	.	4.5	7.82
Total		39	2	22	24	1	0.62	56	1.44	.	.	.	.	.	36.0	5.84