Players

Frosty Tickletackle 5 Libero (L)
Player Skills
SERVING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	ATTACKING	DEFENSE	SETTING
15	15	-	-	14	13

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	Cincinnati L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	6	1	2	0.20	16	.875	2	0.40	5	.400	1.0	5.95
5	Alton W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	7	2	3	0.67	13	.769	4	1.33	6	.667	2.0	7.73
7	Burlington W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	9	3	0	0.60	19	1.000	8	1.60	11	.727	3.0	6.34
8	Schenectady W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	0	2	0.00	9	.778	4	1.33	4	1.000	0.0	8.28
10	Spokane L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	6	3	2	0.75	14	.857	1	0.25	4	.250	3.0	5.95
12	San Jose L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	5	0	2	0.00	12	.833	4	1.00	7	.571	0.0	6.41
13	Cincinnati W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	7	3	0	0.75	16	1.000	5	1.25	7	.714	3.0	8.99
14	Manitowoc W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	2	0.00	13	.846	5	1.00	7	.714	0.0	4.70
18	St. Charles W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1	3	0.33	9	.667	3	1.00	4	.750	1.0	6.10
19	Manitowoc W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	6	1	3	0.25	15	.800	3	0.75	3	1.000	1.0	7.95
22	Starkville W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1	2	0.33	12	.833	6	2.00	8	.750	1.0	4.59
23	Cincinnati W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	14	2	1	0.50	25	.960	5	1.25	8	.625	2.0	7.89
27	Burlington W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	4	1	3	0.20	17	.824	7	1.40	9	.778	1.0	6.20
30	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2	1	0.67	13	.923	1	0.33	3	.333	2.0	6.05
32	Tucson W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	3	1	2	0.25	15	.867	3	0.75	7	.429	1.0	6.28
35	Portland W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2	1	0.67	14	.929	5	1.67	8	.625	2.0	8.41
37	Alton L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1	2	0.33	13	.846	3	1.00	4	.750	1.0	6.10
39	Alton L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	4	0.00	17	.765	5	1.00	7	.714	0.0	5.15
40	Pekin W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	2	0	0.67	12	1.000	5	1.67	8	.625	2.0	4.51
44	Manitowoc W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	0	1	0.00	12	.917	2	0.67	3	.667	0.0	10.00
45	Teutopolis W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	4	1	1	0.20	14	.929	3	0.60	7	.429	1.0	4.65
Total		81	.	.	.	.	.	114	27	37	0.33	300	.877	84	1.04	130	.646	27.0	6.58

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	Cincinnati L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	10	2.00	19	2.29	34	1	.971	1.0	5.95
5	Alton W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	14	2.50	24	0	1.000	2.0	7.73
7	Burlington W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	11	2.20	16	2.24	29	0	1.000	3.0	6.34
8	Schenectady W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	12	2.73	15	0	1.000	0.0	8.28
10	Spokane L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	8	2.00	10	2.25	20	0	1.000	3.0	5.95
12	San Jose L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.75	24	2.33	39	3	.923	0.0	6.41
13	Cincinnati W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	11	2.75	17	2.54	24	1	.958	3.0	8.99
14	Manitowoc W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	8	1.60	11	1.93	30	2	.933	0.0	4.70
18	St. Charles W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	7	2.33	12	2.13	24	1	.958	1.0	6.10
19	Manitowoc W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	10	2.50	15	2.42	24	1	.958	1.0	7.95
22	Starkville W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	7	2.11	18	1	.944	1.0	4.59
23	Cincinnati W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	14	3.50	16	2.00	36	4	.889	2.0	7.89
27	Burlington W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	11	2.20	21	2.24	41	2	.951	1.0	6.20
30	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	5	2.18	11	0	1.000	2.0	6.05
32	Tucson W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	11	2.75	19	2.05	40	4	.900	1.0	6.28
35	Portland W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	8	2.67	9	2.43	14	0	1.000	2.0	8.41
37	Alton L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	13	2.12	26	3	.885	1.0	6.10
39	Alton L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.40	15	2.29	34	0	1.000	0.0	5.15
40	Pekin W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	10	2.22	23	1	.957	2.0	4.51
44	Manitowoc W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	12	4.00	14	2.59	17	1	.941	0.0	10.00
45	Teutopolis W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.20	18	2.23	30	2	.933	1.0	4.65
Total		81	.	.	.	.	.	169	2.09	297	2.25	553	27	.951	27.0	6.58