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
3	Schenectady L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.00	9	.556	0.0	3.58
8	Ames W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	2	0.00	10	.800	9	1.80	18	.500	0.0	5.16
10	Pekin W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	3	0.00	11	.727	4	0.80	7	.571	0.0	4.38
13	Columbia W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	8	.750	0.0	3.28
15	Burlington L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	5	2	3	0.50	12	.750	2	0.50	6	.333	2.0	7.53
17	San Jose L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	2	0.00	6	.667	0	0.00	3	.000	0.0	4.20
21	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1	1	0.33	9	.889	2	0.67	7	.286	1.0	7.35
25	Denali L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	4	1	4	0.20	12	.667	3	0.60	9	.333	1.0	4.10
31	Kentucky L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	2	0.00	6	.667	4	1.33	6	.667	0.0	4.13
Total		36	.	.	.	.	.	18	4	17	0.11	66	.742	35	0.97	73	.479	4.0	4.86

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
3	Schenectady L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.20	16	2.07	41	1	.976	0.0	3.58
8	Ames W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	9	1.80	17	2.18	34	2	.941	0.0	5.16
10	Pekin W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.00	22	2.35	37	2	.946	0.0	4.38
13	Columbia W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.33	4	1.92	12	2	.833	0.0	3.28
15	Burlington L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	16	4.00	14	2.17	29	1	.966	2.0	7.53
17	San Jose L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.33	15	2.20	30	1	.967	0.0	4.20
21	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	7	2.33	10	2.43	21	0	1.000	1.0	7.35
25	Denali L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	9	1.80	17	1.97	37	4	.892	1.0	4.10
31	Kentucky L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	6	1.95	20	1	.950	0.0	4.13
Total		36	.	.	.	.	.	65	1.81	121	2.15	261	14	.946	4.0	4.86