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
1	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	2	0.00	5	.600	1	0.33	5	.200	0.0	4.30
8	Kentucky L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	3	0.00	8	.625	2	0.67	2	1.000	0.0	6.68
11	New Orleans L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	1	0.00	3	.667	0	0.00	1	.000	0.0	3.80
13	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1	2	0.33	7	.714	1	0.33	3	.333	1.0	4.33
15	San Jose L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	4	2	1	0.40	12	.917	7	1.40	13	.538	2.0	8.91
17	Burlington L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	0	0.00	4	1.000	2	0.67	7	.286	0.0	6.88
18	Mat-Su L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2	2	0.67	12	.833	2	0.67	7	.286	2.0	3.90
21	Quincy L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	1	1	0.33	6	.833	0	0.00	5	.000	1.0	6.88
23	Starkville L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	2	0.00	7	.714	2	0.67	3	.667	0.0	6.00
29	Starkville L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	6	1	2	0.25	14	.857	2	0.50	5	.400	1.0	6.05
Total		33	.	.	.	.	.	28	7	16	0.21	78	.795	19	0.58	51	.373	7.0	5.77

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	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	3	1.83	12	1	.917	0.0	4.30
8	Kentucky L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	8	2.67	6	2.07	14	0	1.000	0.0	6.68
11	New Orleans L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.33	4	1.93	15	0	1.000	0.0	3.80
13	Baton Rouge L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	8	2.33	15	1	.933	1.0	4.33
15	San Jose L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	15	3.00	19	2.45	29	1	.966	2.0	8.91
17	Burlington L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.33	11	2.56	18	0	1.000	0.0	6.88
18	Mat-Su L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.33	9	2.25	16	0	1.000	2.0	3.90
21	Quincy L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	10	2.41	17	0	1.000	1.0	6.88
23	Starkville L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	7	2.23	13	0	1.000	0.0	6.00
29	Starkville L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	9	2.25	11	2.15	20	3	.850	1.0	6.05
Total		33	.	.	.	.	.	60	1.82	88	2.25	169	6	.964	7.0	5.77