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	1	0.00	7	.857	1	0.33	2	.500	0.0	5.45
5	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	2	0.00	5	.600	2	0.67	3	.667	0.0	1.80
9	Cincinnati L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1	1	0.33	11	.909	1	0.33	5	.200	1.0	5.13
12	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	1	0.00	8	.875	2	0.67	5	.400	0.0	3.30
15	Santa Clara W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	3	0.00	11	.727	3	1.00	6	.500	0.0	7.23
18	San Diego L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	3	0.00	15	.800	3	0.60	5	.600	0.0	3.70
22	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	7	0	3	0.00	14	.786	3	1.00	5	.600	0.0	2.70
26	Arlington L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	3	0.00	11	.727	0	0.00	1	.000	0.0	3.95
31	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	2	0.00	10	.800	2	0.67	6	.333	0.0	2.85
Total		29	.	.	.	.	.	29	1	19	0.03	92	.793	17	0.59	38	.447	1.0	4.01

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	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	8	2.12	17	1	.941	0.0	5.45
5	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	10	1.67	30	6	.800	0.0	1.80
9	Cincinnati L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.33	14	2.20	25	2	.920	1.0	5.13
12	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	10	1.93	29	4	.862	0.0	3.30
15	Santa Clara W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	13	4.33	5	1.76	17	2	.882	0.0	7.23
18	San Diego L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.40	14	1.72	39	8	.795	0.0	3.70
22	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	10	1.69	35	9	.743	0.0	2.70
26	Arlington L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.33	10	1.85	27	4	.852	0.0	3.95
31	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.33	4	1.55	20	4	.800	0.0	2.85
Total		29	.	.	.	.	.	45	1.55	85	1.82	239	40	.833	1.0	4.01