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
4	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	2	8	.250	5	0	1	0.00	12	.917	.	.	.	.	4.0	3.41
6	Starkville W (3–0 sets)	3	10	3.33	5	24	.208	5	2	0	0.67	11	1.000	.	.	.	.	13.5	8.56
8	Arlington W (3–0 sets)	3	6	2.00	2	10	.400	11	4	2	1.33	19	.895	.	.	.	.	13.5	8.75
9	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	2	12	.167	5	1	2	0.33	12	.833	.	.	.	.	5.5	5.68
11	Ames W (3–2 sets)	5	9	1.80	3	18	.333	6	2	3	0.40	17	.824	.	.	.	.	15.0	7.34
12	Santa Clara L (2–3 sets)	5	3	0.60	2	10	.100	11	5	2	1.00	27	.926	.	.	.	.	11.0	7.05
14	Dallas L (1–3 sets)	4	4	1.00	5	16	-.063	1	0	2	0.00	13	.846	.	.	.	.	6.5	5.84
15	Cincinnati W (3–0 sets)	3	7	2.33	1	10	.600	1	0	0	0.00	7	1.000	.	.	.	.	8.0	5.52
17	San Diego L (2–3 sets)	5	7	1.40	4	19	.158	3	0	1	0.00	12	.917	.	.	.	.	10.0	6.39
18	Mendon W (3–1 sets)	4	7	1.75	5	15	.133	7	1	0	0.25	15	1.000	.	.	.	.	9.5	6.25
21	New Orleans L (2–3 sets)	5	6	1.20	3	16	.188	5	2	2	0.40	15	.867	.	.	.	.	8.0	3.62
22	Manitowoc W (3–1 sets)	4	5	1.25	4	16	.063	4	0	2	0.00	10	.800	.	.	.	.	5.5	4.66
26	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	1	9	.333	3	1	0	0.33	12	1.000	.	.	.	.	5.0	3.34
29	Quincy W (3–1 sets)	4	14	3.50	4	28	.357	6	0	3	0.00	15	.800	.	.	.	.	15.0	7.71
33	Antioch L (2–3 sets)	5	7	1.40	4	16	.188	6	2	2	0.40	15	.867	.	.	.	.	9.0	3.34
35	Sheboygan L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	2	12	.167	0	0	1	0.00	6	.833	.	.	.	.	4.0	2.50
39	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	5	1.67	5	13	.000	5	1	1	0.33	13	.923	.	.	.	.	7.5	7.77
40	Baton Rouge W (3–2 sets)	5	13	2.60	6	29	.241	9	1	6	0.20	20	.700	.	.	.	.	14.5	6.37
44	Dallas L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	3	17	.059	1	1	0	0.33	7	1.000	.	.	.	.	6.0	4.66
45	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	5	1.67	4	16	.063	0	0	1	0.00	6	.833	.	.	.	.	5.0	2.86
Total		76	128	1.68	67	314	.194	94	23	31	0.30	264	.883	.	.	.	.	176.0	5.58

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
4	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	3.41
6	Starkville W (3–0 sets)	3	1	1	2	1	0.67	8	2.67	.	.	.	.	.	13.5	8.56
8	Arlington W (3–0 sets)	3	1	5	6	0	2.00	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	13.5	8.75
9	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	6	2.00	.	.	.	.	.	5.5	5.68
11	Ames W (3–2 sets)	5	0	8	8	0	1.60	3	0.60	.	.	.	.	.	15.0	7.34
12	Santa Clara L (2–3 sets)	5	0	6	6	0	1.20	5	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	11.0	7.05
14	Dallas L (1–3 sets)	4	0	5	5	0	1.25	3	0.75	.	.	.	.	.	6.5	5.84
15	Cincinnati W (3–0 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	8.0	5.52
17	San Diego L (2–3 sets)	5	0	6	6	2	1.20	4	0.80	.	.	.	.	.	10.0	6.39
18	Mendon W (3–1 sets)	4	0	3	3	0	0.75	2	0.50	.	.	.	.	.	9.5	6.25
21	New Orleans L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.20	.	.	.	.	.	8.0	3.62
22	Manitowoc W (3–1 sets)	4	0	1	1	1	0.25	6	1.50	.	.	.	.	.	5.5	4.66
26	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	3.34
29	Quincy W (3–1 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	6	1.50	.	.	.	.	.	15.0	7.71
33	Antioch L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	4	0.80	.	.	.	.	.	9.0	3.34
35	Sheboygan L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	2.50
39	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	0	3	3	0	1.00	5	1.67	.	.	.	.	.	7.5	7.77
40	Baton Rouge W (3–2 sets)	5	0	1	1	0	0.20	7	1.40	.	.	.	.	.	14.5	6.37
44	Dallas L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	1	0.67	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	6.0	4.66
45	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	2.86
Total		76	2	46	48	5	0.63	79	1.04	.	.	.	.	.	176.0	5.58