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	Pekin W (3–0 sets)	3	7	2.33	5	21	.095	8	1	3	0.33	14	.786	.	.	.	.	9.5	7.85
5	Ames W (3–2 sets)	5	7	1.40	9	30	-.067	5	1	1	0.20	14	.929	.	.	.	.	11.0	7.30
9	Manitowoc W (3–2 sets)	5	7	1.40	4	23	.130	4	1	3	0.20	13	.769	.	.	.	.	11.5	7.57
15	Cincinnati W (3–0 sets)	3	4	1.33	3	9	.111	3	0	2	0.00	9	.778	.	.	.	.	5.5	5.94
18	Schenectady L (1–3 sets)	4	14	3.50	6	33	.242	7	1	3	0.25	16	.813	.	.	.	.	15.5	7.27
19	Portland W (3–0 sets)	3	9	3.00	4	18	.278	7	1	1	0.33	13	.923	.	.	.	.	10.5	7.62
21	Mat-Su L (2–3 sets)	5	9	1.80	8	25	.040	9	5	2	1.00	19	.895	.	.	.	.	16.5	7.27
25	Baton Rouge W (3–1 sets)	4	19	4.75	7	37	.324	5	1	1	0.25	15	.933	.	.	.	.	21.0	8.22
30	Dallas W (3–0 sets)	3	7	2.33	0	7	1.000	6	1	1	0.33	13	.923	.	.	.	.	11.0	8.54
35	Teutopolis W (3–1 sets)	4	1	0.25	2	7	-.143	2	0	3	0.00	11	.727	.	.	.	.	2.0	3.78
39	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	12	4.00	3	18	.500	3	0	4	0.00	11	.636	.	.	.	.	15.0	9.19
Total		42	96	2.29	51	228	.197	59	12	24	0.29	148	.838	.	.	.	.	129.0	7.32

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	Pekin W (3–0 sets)	3	0	3	3	0	1.00	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	9.5	7.85
5	Ames W (3–2 sets)	5	0	6	6	2	1.20	8	1.60	.	.	.	.	.	11.0	7.30
9	Manitowoc W (3–2 sets)	5	0	7	7	0	1.40	11	2.20	.	.	.	.	.	11.5	7.57
15	Cincinnati W (3–0 sets)	3	0	3	3	0	1.00	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	5.5	5.94
18	Schenectady L (1–3 sets)	4	0	1	1	2	0.25	7	1.75	.	.	.	.	.	15.5	7.27
19	Portland W (3–0 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	7	2.33	.	.	.	.	.	10.5	7.62
21	Mat-Su L (2–3 sets)	5	1	3	4	0	0.80	7	1.40	.	.	.	.	.	16.5	7.27
25	Baton Rouge W (3–1 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	6	1.50	.	.	.	.	.	21.0	8.22
30	Dallas W (3–0 sets)	3	0	6	6	0	2.00	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	11.0	8.54
35	Teutopolis W (3–1 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	4	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	2.0	3.78
39	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	2	2	4	0	1.33	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	15.0	9.19
Total		42	3	36	39	4	0.93	61	1.45	.	.	.	.	.	129.0	7.32