Players

MSWL UNITED MSWL U2 TMVL
Friday, May 1st, 2026 - 02:38:12 PM (gmt)

TMVL Season 17 // Landing

Logo

Donate ELO Ranking Honor Roll NET Ranking Stats Leaders Teams Of The Week Wall

If you'd like to join please click this link and add your name to the waitlist.

PAC 8 Conference

SEC Conference

BIG 8 Conference

Big East Conference

Graham Watson 5 Outside Hitter (OH)
Player Skills
SERVING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	ATTACKING	DEFENSE	SETTING
11	15	9	17	13	8

Season 8 Totals
KILLS	ATK PCT	ACES	DIGS	BLOCKS
118 185th	.150 300th	5 331st	39 282nd	19 324th

Career Honors

S102nd All-SEC

Match Statistics - OFFENSE (Season 8)

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	Starkville L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	3	19	.053	1	0	2	0.00	8	.750	1	0.33	1	1.000	4.5	2.95
4	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	9	3.00	11	24	-.083	1	0	2	0.00	7	.714	.	.	.	.	10.0	5.34
8	New Orleans L (0–3 sets)	3	10	3.33	5	24	.208	2	0	3	0.00	9	.667	.	.	.	.	10.5	5.34
11	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	8	2.67	4	21	.190	2	0	1	0.00	8	.875	0	0.00	1	.000	10.0	7.05
13	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	12	4.00	8	31	.129	1	0	0	0.00	6	1.000	.	.	.	.	12.0	6.38
14	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	8	2.67	4	22	.182	2	1	0	0.33	7	1.000	.	.	.	.	11.0	5.03
18	Carlsbad L (1–3 sets)	4	18	4.50	7	43	.256	8	2	4	0.50	17	.765	1	0.25	1	1.000	20.0	7.83
19	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	7	2.33	9	27	-.074	3	1	2	0.33	8	.750	.	.	.	.	8.0	3.40
21	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	8	2.67	0	17	.471	1	0	1	0.00	8	.875	.	.	.	.	9.0	6.13
25	Mendon L (0–3 sets)	3	6	2.00	9	25	-.120	1	0	2	0.00	9	.778	.	.	.	.	8.0	3.20
29	Antioch L (0–3 sets)	3	8	2.67	5	21	.143	2	0	2	0.00	8	.750	0	0.00	2	.000	8.5	5.68
38	Arlington L (0–3 sets)	3	20	6.67	6	39	.359	3	1	3	0.33	11	.727	.	.	.	.	21.5	7.62
Total		37	118	3.19	71	313	.150	27	5	22	0.14	106	.792	2	0.05	5	.400	133.0	5.50

Match Statistics - DEFENSE (Season 8)

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	Starkville L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	1	0.33	13	2.08	26	4	.846	4.5	2.95
4	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	1	0.33	12	2.04	26	4	.846	10.0	5.34
8	New Orleans L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	1	0.33	3	1.00	9	1.87	30	2	.933	10.5	5.34
11	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	1	2	3	0	1.00	4	1.33	9	2.64	14	0	1.000	10.0	7.05
13	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.33	13	2.00	28	3	.893	12.0	6.38
14	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	0	4	4	0	1.33	2	0.67	8	1.88	16	2	.875	11.0	5.03
18	Carlsbad L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	10	2.50	16	2.10	31	5	.839	20.0	7.83
19	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.33	7	1.83	29	1	.966	8.0	3.40
21	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	4	1.33	12	2.33	18	2	.889	9.0	6.13
25	Mendon L (0–3 sets)	3	0	4	4	0	1.33	1	0.33	5	1.90	21	1	.952	8.0	3.20
29	Antioch L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	2	0.67	11	2.28	18	1	.944	8.5	5.68
38	Arlington L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	1	0.33	6	2.00	13	1.97	31	3	.903	21.5	7.62
Total		37	1	18	19	2	0.51	39	1.05	128	2.04	288	28	.903	133.0	5.50