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	10	3.33	13	30	-.100	1	0	2	0.00	4	.500	.	.	.	.	11.0	6.18
6	Ames L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	7	22	-.136	2	0	3	0.00	8	.625	.	.	.	.	4.5	4.28
9	Schenectady L (1–3 sets)	4	10	2.50	3	22	.318	5	4	2	1.00	13	.846	.	.	.	.	16.0	7.67
12	Manitowoc L (0–3 sets)	3	6	2.00	4	16	.125	3	0	1	0.00	9	.889	.	.	.	.	6.0	4.83
14	Starkville L (0–3 sets)	3	3	1.00	4	10	-.100	1	0	1	0.00	7	.857	.	.	.	.	4.5	4.30
18	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	6	2.00	1	12	.417	2	0	5	0.00	8	.375	.	.	.	.	6.0	4.34
21	St. Charles L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	1	9	.333	3	0	3	0.00	11	.727	.	.	.	.	4.5	5.19
30	Arlington L (0–3 sets)	3	3	1.00	2	8	.125	4	1	1	0.33	11	.909	.	.	.	.	4.0	2.84
35	Mendon L (0–3 sets)	3	10	3.33	6	28	.143	2	1	0	0.33	6	1.000	.	.	.	.	13.0	6.74
40	Manitowoc L (1–3 sets)	4	11	2.75	3	25	.320	1	0	4	0.00	10	.600	.	.	.	.	13.5	7.95
Total		32	67	2.09	44	182	.126	24	6	22	0.19	87	.747	.	.	.	.	83.0	5.43

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	2	2	0	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	11.0	6.18
6	Ames L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	4.5	4.28
9	Schenectady L (1–3 sets)	4	1	2	3	0	0.75	9	2.25	.	.	.	.	.	16.0	7.67
12	Manitowoc L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	.	.	.	.	.	6.0	4.83
14	Starkville L (0–3 sets)	3	1	1	2	0	0.67	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	4.5	4.30
18	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.33	.	.	.	.	.	6.0	4.34
21	St. Charles L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	7	2.33	.	.	.	.	.	4.5	5.19
30	Arlington L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	2.84
35	Mendon L (0–3 sets)	3	2	0	2	0	0.67	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	13.0	6.74
40	Manitowoc L (1–3 sets)	4	0	5	5	0	1.25	5	1.25	.	.	.	.	.	13.5	7.95
Total		32	4	12	16	1	0.50	38	1.19	.	.	.	.	.	83.0	5.43