Players

Ethan Van Ness 5 Outside Hitter (OH)
Player Skills
SERVING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	ATTACKING	DEFENSE	SETTING
12	13	14	14	9	5

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	Quincy L (1–3 sets)	4	13	3.25	2	23	.478	5	1	2	0.25	13	.846	.	.	.	.	15.0	6.07
2	Portland L (2–3 sets)	5	18	3.60	4	33	.424	7	0	2	0.00	18	.889	.	.	.	.	20.0	7.33
4	Columbia W (3–1 sets)	4	22	5.50	4	32	.563	9	0	1	0.00	18	.944	0	0.00	1	.000	24.0	7.74
6	Nashville W (3–0 sets)	3	17	5.67	5	27	.444	4	0	0	0.00	9	1.000	.	.	.	.	18.0	8.12
7	Ames L (1–3 sets)	4	13	3.25	8	34	.147	2	1	3	0.25	12	.750	.	.	.	.	16.5	6.02
8	Pekin L (1–3 sets)	4	16	4.00	5	28	.393	3	1	2	0.25	12	.833	.	.	.	.	17.5	7.17
10	Quincy W (3–1 sets)	4	8	2.00	3	14	.357	7	0	3	0.00	15	.800	1	0.25	1	1.000	10.0	4.34
12	Antioch W (3–1 sets)	4	5	1.25	2	7	.429	5	0	2	0.00	14	.857	2	0.50	2	1.000	5.5	3.31
13	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	5	1.67	0	10	.500	2	0	1	0.00	8	.875	0	0.00	1	.000	5.5	1.82
16	San Jose L (0–3 sets)	3	3	1.00	3	15	.000	0	0	1	0.00	6	.833	.	.	.	.	3.5	2.61
17	Mat-Su L (0–3 sets)	3	5	1.67	4	18	.056	0	0	2	0.00	7	.714	1	0.33	2	.500	6.5	3.81
18	Schenectady L (2–3 sets)	5	13	2.60	5	20	.400	8	1	1	0.20	17	.941	.	.	.	.	15.5	4.61
21	New Orleans W (3–0 sets)	3	8	2.67	1	11	.636	3	1	3	0.33	9	.667	.	.	.	.	11.5	6.14
22	Carlsbad W (3–1 sets)	4	8	2.00	2	19	.316	4	0	0	0.00	12	1.000	.	.	.	.	8.5	4.17
29	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	12	4.00	2	16	.625	7	0	2	0.00	15	.867	.	.	.	.	12.0	7.88
34	Pekin L (1–3 sets)	4	7	1.75	3	15	.267	4	0	1	0.00	14	.929	1	0.25	2	.500	8.0	4.26
39	St. Charles W (3–1 sets)	4	12	3.00	2	17	.588	10	1	3	0.25	19	.842	.	.	.	.	14.0	7.61
44	Arlington L (2–3 sets)	5	17	3.40	6	27	.407	6	3	3	0.60	19	.842	0	0.00	1	.000	20.5	6.47
Total		69	202	2.93	61	366	.385	86	9	32	0.13	237	.865	5	0.07	10	.500	232.0	5.53

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	Quincy L (1–3 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	4	1.00	19	1.91	43	7	.837	15.0	6.07
2	Portland L (2–3 sets)	5	0	4	4	0	0.80	5	1.00	21	2.11	46	4	.913	20.0	7.33
4	Columbia W (3–1 sets)	4	0	4	4	0	1.00	5	1.25	12	1.79	42	6	.857	24.0	7.74
6	Nashville W (3–0 sets)	3	0	2	2	2	0.67	1	0.33	10	2.19	16	3	.813	18.0	8.12
7	Ames L (1–3 sets)	4	0	5	5	0	1.25	8	2.00	9	1.80	30	3	.900	16.5	6.02
8	Pekin L (1–3 sets)	4	0	1	1	0	0.25	2	0.50	20	2.31	35	1	.971	17.5	7.17
10	Quincy W (3–1 sets)	4	1	2	3	1	0.75	4	1.00	14	2.03	30	3	.900	10.0	4.34
12	Antioch W (3–1 sets)	4	0	1	1	0	0.25	2	0.50	16	2.09	34	4	.882	5.5	3.31
13	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	1	0.33	11	1.65	26	9	.654	5.5	1.82
16	San Jose L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	.	.	12	2.07	28	1	.964	3.5	2.61
17	Mat-Su L (0–3 sets)	3	0	3	3	0	1.00	1	0.33	14	2.29	28	1	.964	6.5	3.81
18	Schenectady L (2–3 sets)	5	0	3	3	0	0.60	5	1.00	13	1.78	32	6	.813	15.5	4.61
21	New Orleans W (3–0 sets)	3	0	5	5	0	1.67	2	0.67	13	2.08	26	3	.885	11.5	6.14
22	Carlsbad W (3–1 sets)	4	0	1	1	0	0.25	5	1.25	18	2.21	29	4	.862	8.5	4.17
29	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	10	3.33	10	2.15	20	1	.950	12.0	7.88
34	Pekin L (1–3 sets)	4	0	2	2	1	0.50	5	1.25	8	2.31	16	0	1.000	8.0	4.26
39	St. Charles W (3–1 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	7	1.75	19	2.41	29	2	.931	14.0	7.61
44	Arlington L (2–3 sets)	5	0	1	1	0	0.20	3	0.60	15	2.21	24	2	.917	20.5	6.47
Total		69	1	40	41	4	0.59	70	1.01	254	2.06	534	60	.888	232.0	5.53