Players

Paul Cockburn 5 Outside Hitter (OH)
Player Skills
SERVING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	ATTACKING	DEFENSE	SETTING
15	15	13	14	12	6

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	Arlington W (3–0 sets)	3	10	3.33	4	18	.333	5	2	2	0.67	11	.818	.	.	.	.	12.5	6.52
2	St. Charles L (0–3 sets)	3	3	1.00	5	17	-.118	1	0	2	0.00	6	.667	1	0.33	1	1.000	3.5	3.45
7	Pekin W (3–2 sets)	5	12	2.40	1	18	.611	10	3	2	0.60	20	.900	.	.	.	.	16.5	4.89
9	Tucson W (3–2 sets)	5	14	2.80	7	25	.280	4	1	3	0.20	15	.800	.	.	.	.	16.0	5.80
11	St. Charles W (3–0 sets)	3	6	2.00	3	14	.214	8	3	3	1.00	14	.786	.	.	.	.	9.0	4.36
12	Schenectady W (3–1 sets)	4	13	3.25	2	26	.423	5	2	5	0.50	15	.667	0	0.00	1	.000	15.5	6.60
13	Ames W (3–1 sets)	4	10	2.50	3	24	.292	2	1	3	0.25	10	.700	.	.	.	.	14.0	4.41
14	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	11	3.67	2	18	.500	2	0	1	0.00	10	.900	.	.	.	.	12.0	5.98
17	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	5	1.67	6	22	-.045	1	0	1	0.00	7	.857	.	.	.	.	8.0	2.48
19	Arlington W (3–1 sets)	4	10	2.50	0	15	.667	8	1	1	0.25	16	.938	.	.	.	.	13.5	5.22
22	Schenectady W (3–2 sets)	5	8	1.60	2	15	.400	6	1	2	0.20	16	.875	.	.	.	.	13.0	4.01
23	Portland L (1–3 sets)	4	10	2.50	4	24	.250	0	0	4	0.00	8	.500	1	0.25	3	.333	10.5	4.31
25	San Jose L (0–3 sets)	3	8	2.67	1	17	.412	4	1	1	0.33	10	.900	1	0.33	1	1.000	10.0	5.40
30	Mat-Su L (0–3 sets)	3	6	2.00	2	14	.286	3	1	2	0.33	10	.800	.	.	.	.	8.0	3.43
33	Manitowoc W (3–0 sets)	3	5	1.67	3	13	.154	6	0	0	0.00	11	1.000	0	0.00	1	.000	5.0	3.28
34	Portland L (1–3 sets)	4	7	1.75	3	19	.211	5	0	3	0.00	15	.800	1	0.25	1	1.000	7.0	2.21
38	Ames W (3–2 sets)	5	9	1.80	4	18	.278	7	2	2	0.40	16	.875	.	.	.	.	12.5	4.91
39	Dallas L (0–3 sets)	3	7	2.33	2	15	.333	6	0	0	0.00	13	1.000	.	.	.	.	7.5	4.87
43	Spokane W (3–1 sets)	4	5	1.25	0	8	.625	5	2	2	0.50	13	.846	.	.	.	.	9.0	3.63
48	Antioch W (3–1 sets)	4	7	1.75	5	16	.125	3	0	0	0.00	11	1.000	0	0.00	1	.000	8.5	3.64
Total		75	166	2.21	59	356	.301	91	20	39	0.27	247	.842	4	0.05	9	.444	211.5	4.47

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	Arlington W (3–0 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	2	0.67	15	2.12	25	5	.800	12.5	6.52
2	St. Charles L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	5	1.67	12	2.14	28	2	.929	3.5	3.45
7	Pekin W (3–2 sets)	5	0	3	3	1	0.60	.	.	10	2.10	31	1	.968	16.5	4.89
9	Tucson W (3–2 sets)	5	0	2	2	0	0.40	4	0.80	21	2.29	35	2	.943	16.0	5.80
11	St. Charles W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	8	2.17	18	1	.944	9.0	4.36
12	Schenectady W (3–1 sets)	4	0	1	1	0	0.25	3	0.75	17	2.25	28	2	.929	15.5	6.60
13	Ames W (3–1 sets)	4	0	6	6	0	1.50	5	1.25	9	1.68	25	7	.720	14.0	4.41
14	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	3	1.00	5	1.85	20	0	1.000	12.0	5.98
17	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	0	6	6	2	2.00	1	0.33	5	1.59	22	5	.773	8.0	2.48
19	Arlington W (3–1 sets)	4	1	3	4	0	1.00	4	1.00	11	1.83	29	4	.862	13.5	5.22
22	Schenectady W (3–2 sets)	5	0	8	8	0	1.60	4	0.80	15	2.03	34	3	.912	13.0	4.01
23	Portland L (1–3 sets)	4	0	1	1	0	0.25	2	0.50	14	2.09	32	4	.875	10.5	4.31
25	San Jose L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0	1	0	0.33	3	1.00	10	2.00	25	2	.920	10.0	5.40
30	Mat-Su L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0	1	0	0.33	3	1.00	13	1.94	33	6	.818	8.0	3.43
33	Manitowoc W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	7	2.00	15	2	.867	5.0	3.28
34	Portland L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.25	12	1.88	34	7	.794	7.0	2.21
38	Ames W (3–2 sets)	5	0	3	3	0	0.60	5	1.00	11	2.29	24	0	1.000	12.5	4.91
39	Dallas L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	1	0.33	11	2.08	25	3	.880	7.5	4.87
43	Spokane W (3–1 sets)	4	0	4	4	0	1.00	4	1.00	16	1.93	30	7	.767	9.0	3.63
48	Antioch W (3–1 sets)	4	1	1	2	2	0.50	5	1.25	11	2.15	26	1	.962	8.5	3.64
Total		75	4	43	47	5	0.63	61	0.81	233	2.03	539	64	.881	211.5	4.47