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
2	Tucson W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1	2	0.33	9	.778	5	1.67	6	.833	1.0	8.71
3	Nashville L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	1	1	2	0.20	9	.778	5	1.00	9	.556	1.0	5.00
8	Carlsbad W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	1	1	0.33	7	.857	7	2.33	7	1.000	1.0	5.83
9	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	0	3	0.00	9	.667	3	1.00	8	.375	0.0	6.63
10	Mat-Su W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	0	0.00	7	1.000	1	0.33	2	.500	0.0	8.15
12	Burlington W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	2	0.00	8	.750	4	1.33	5	.800	0.0	6.03
13	San Jose W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	1	1	0.33	10	.900	3	1.00	4	.750	1.0	6.25
16	Cincinnati W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	8	2	2	0.40	20	.900	1	0.20	2	.500	2.0	5.05
20	Mendon W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	1	2	0.33	8	.750	7	2.33	8	.875	1.0	6.28
23	San Jose W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	7	1	1	0.20	17	.941	3	0.60	4	.750	1.0	4.72
24	Tucson L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	5	0	4	0.00	16	.750	1	0.25	4	.250	0.0	6.94
27	Mat-Su L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	2	0.00	12	.833	3	0.75	3	1.000	0.0	2.90
29	Albuquerque W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	0	0.00	6	1.000	8	2.67	10	.800	0.0	6.96
32	Portland W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	9	1	5	0.25	19	.737	4	1.00	7	.571	1.0	4.05
36	Baton Rouge W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	2	0.00	13	.846	2	0.40	5	.400	0.0	4.50
37	San Jose W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	8	2	1	0.50	21	.952	3	0.75	3	1.000	2.0	6.88
41	Schenectady W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	0	0	0.00	13	1.000	2	0.67	3	.667	0.0	8.38
42	Mat-Su L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	8	2	2	0.40	23	.913	6	1.20	8	.750	2.0	4.45
44	San Diego W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	5	1	1	0.25	14	.929	5	1.25	5	1.000	1.0	8.25
46	Pekin L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	6	0	4	0.00	16	.750	7	1.75	10	.700	0.0	8.14
Total		76	.	.	.	.	.	90	14	37	0.18	257	.856	80	1.05	113	.708	14.0	6.21

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
2	Tucson W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	14	4.67	7	2.21	14	0	1.000	1.0	8.71
3	Nashville L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.40	13	2.27	22	1	.955	1.0	5.00
8	Carlsbad W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	5	2.17	12	0	1.000	1.0	5.83
9	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	7	2.36	14	0	1.000	0.0	6.63
10	Mat-Su W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	12	4.00	10	2.29	17	1	.941	0.0	8.15
12	Burlington W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	7	2.33	12	2.15	26	1	.962	0.0	6.03
13	San Jose W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	5	2.09	11	1	.909	1.0	6.25
16	Cincinnati W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.40	16	2.28	29	1	.966	2.0	5.05
20	Mendon W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	15	2.28	29	1	.966	1.0	6.28
23	San Jose W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	8	1.60	15	1.94	34	3	.912	1.0	4.72
24	Tucson L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.50	27	2.51	37	2	.946	0.0	6.94
27	Mat-Su L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	3	0.75	11	1.88	26	5	.808	0.0	2.90
29	Albuquerque W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	8	2.67	15	2.15	26	2	.923	0.0	6.96
32	Portland W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.00	16	2.00	36	4	.889	1.0	4.05
36	Baton Rouge W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.20	12	2.10	30	1	.967	0.0	4.50
37	San Jose W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.75	19	2.39	31	1	.968	2.0	6.88
41	Schenectady W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	12	4.00	11	2.08	26	1	.962	0.0	8.38
42	Mat-Su L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	8	1.60	12	1.77	35	6	.829	2.0	4.45
44	San Diego W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	10	2.50	11	2.47	19	0	1.000	1.0	8.25
46	Pekin L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	9	2.25	18	2.50	26	2	.923	0.0	8.14
Total		76	.	.	.	.	.	150	1.97	257	2.18	500	33	.934	14.0	6.21