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
8	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	8	2.67	6	28	.071	1	0	0	0.00	6	1.000	0	0.00	1	.000	8.0	3.87
18	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	10	29	-.207	0	0	1	0.00	5	.800	.	.	.	.	4.5	2.83
21	Schenectady L (0–3 sets)	3	7	2.33	6	19	.053	3	2	1	0.67	7	.857	.	.	.	.	10.0	3.86
25	Columbia L (1–3 sets)	4	1	0.25	2	8	-.125	2	0	2	0.00	10	.800	.	.	.	.	2.5	2.33
29	Mat-Su L (0–3 sets)	3	3	1.00	2	13	.077	3	0	3	0.00	8	.625	.	.	.	.	3.0	3.11
31	Mat-Su W (3–2 sets)	5	14	2.80	5	35	.257	6	1	0	0.20	15	1.000	.	.	.	.	15.5	6.75
34	Tucson W (3–1 sets)	4	3	0.75	5	12	-.167	4	0	0	0.00	14	1.000	.	.	.	.	5.0	4.01
44	Denali L (0–3 sets)	3	7	2.33	1	14	.429	6	2	0	0.67	13	1.000	0	0.00	1	.000	10.0	5.22
46	Ames L (2–3 sets)	5	5	1.00	6	22	-.045	9	1	2	0.20	19	.895	0	0.00	2	.000	6.5	2.71
Total		33	52	1.58	43	180	.050	34	6	9	0.18	97	.907	0	0.00	4	.000	65.0	3.85

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
8	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	12	1.93	27	5	.815	8.0	3.87
18	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	1	0.33	15	2.13	31	2	.935	4.5	2.83
21	Schenectady L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	1	0.67	2	0.67	8	1.74	23	5	.783	10.0	3.86
25	Columbia L (1–3 sets)	4	1	1	2	1	0.50	1	0.25	14	1.88	34	6	.824	2.5	2.33
29	Mat-Su L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	13	2.25	20	4	.800	3.0	3.11
31	Mat-Su W (3–2 sets)	5	0	1	1	0	0.20	7	1.40	24	2.57	37	0	1.000	15.5	6.75
34	Tucson W (3–1 sets)	4	0	4	4	0	1.00	4	1.00	16	2.14	35	2	.943	5.0	4.01
44	Denali L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	2	0.67	10	2.10	20	2	.900	10.0	5.22
46	Ames L (2–3 sets)	5	0	1	1	0	0.20	5	1.00	8	1.78	23	2	.913	6.5	2.71
Total		33	1	12	13	2	0.39	22	0.67	120	2.08	250	28	.888	65.0	3.85