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
5	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	1	.000	3	0	3	0.00	11	.727	30	10.00	66	.455	0.0	4.06
6	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	3	0.00	7	.571	20	6.67	62	.323	0.0	1.96
9	Mat-Su L (1–3 sets)	4	1	0.25	0	2	.500	11	5	4	1.25	21	.810	32	8.00	97	.330	6.0	4.26
10	Ames L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	4	.000	0	0	1	0.00	7	.857	20	6.67	54	.370	0.0	1.80
15	Spokane L (1–3 sets)	4	2	0.50	0	7	.286	4	1	3	0.25	15	.800	37	9.25	81	.457	4.0	4.52
18	Mendon L (1–3 sets)	4	4	1.00	1	9	.333	7	0	0	0.00	18	1.000	28	7.00	77	.364	5.0	4.75
26	Baton Rouge W (3–1 sets)	4	2	0.50	0	6	.333	8	2	2	0.50	19	.895	42	10.50	76	.553	6.5	7.03
30	Tucson W (3–2 sets)	5	1	0.20	2	5	-.200	5	1	1	0.20	19	.947	56	11.20	112	.500	4.0	6.75
Total		30	10	0.33	3	34	.206	39	9	17	0.30	117	.855	265	8.83	625	.424	25.5	4.39

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
5	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	0.0	4.06
6	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	0.0	1.96
9	Mat-Su L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.25	.	.	.	.	.	6.0	4.26
10	Ames L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	0.0	1.80
15	Spokane L (1–3 sets)	4	0	2	2	1	0.50	2	0.50	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	4.52
18	Mendon L (1–3 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	8	2.00	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	4.75
26	Baton Rouge W (3–1 sets)	4	0	5	5	0	1.25	3	0.75	.	.	.	.	.	6.5	7.03
30	Tucson W (3–2 sets)	5	0	4	4	1	0.80	8	1.60	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	6.75
Total		30	0	13	13	2	0.43	34	1.13	.	.	.	.	.	25.5	4.39