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	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	3	15	.067	1	0	0	0.00	6	1.000	.	.	.	.	4.5	3.58
8	Kentucky L (0–3 sets)	3	11	3.67	5	25	.240	1	1	1	0.33	7	.857	.	.	.	.	12.0	5.08
11	New Orleans L (0–3 sets)	3	6	2.00	5	21	.048	0	0	2	0.00	2	.000	.	.	.	.	7.0	3.88
13	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	8	2.67	4	22	.182	1	0	1	0.00	7	.857	.	.	.	.	8.0	4.18
15	San Jose L (2–3 sets)	5	12	2.40	6	31	.194	2	1	1	0.20	12	.917	.	.	.	.	16.5	8.51
17	Burlington L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	6	22	-.091	0	0	2	0.00	5	.600	.	.	.	.	5.0	4.94
18	Mat-Su L (0–3 sets)	3	5	1.67	3	17	.118	1	0	0	0.00	7	1.000	.	.	.	.	6.5	6.93
21	Quincy L (0–3 sets)	3	3	1.00	6	14	-.214	4	0	1	0.00	8	.875	.	.	.	.	3.0	2.70
23	Starkville L (0–3 sets)	3	6	2.00	2	15	.267	0	0	2	0.00	5	.600	.	.	.	.	6.0	3.22
29	Starkville L (1–3 sets)	4	7	1.75	9	34	-.059	8	1	2	0.25	16	.875	.	.	.	.	9.5	7.51
Total		33	66	2.00	49	216	.079	18	3	12	0.09	75	.840	.	.	.	.	78.0	5.05

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	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	4.5	3.58
8	Kentucky L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	12.0	5.08
11	New Orleans L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0	1	0	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	7.0	3.88
13	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	8.0	4.18
15	San Jose L (2–3 sets)	5	0	7	7	1	1.40	10	2.00	.	.	.	.	.	16.5	8.51
17	Burlington L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	4.94
18	Mat-Su L (0–3 sets)	3	0	3	3	0	1.00	11	3.67	.	.	.	.	.	6.5	6.93
21	Quincy L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	2.70
23	Starkville L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	6.0	3.22
29	Starkville L (1–3 sets)	4	0	3	3	0	0.75	11	2.75	.	.	.	.	.	9.5	7.51
Total		33	1	16	17	3	0.52	45	1.36	.	.	.	.	.	78.0	5.05