Players

Nicholas Gardner 5 Outside Hitter (OH)
Player Skills
SERVING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	ATTACKING	DEFENSE	SETTING
14	17	15	16	11	7

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	Quincy W (3–1 sets)	4	6	1.50	5	14	.071	10	1	2	0.25	17	.882	0	0.00	1	.000	9.0	4.32
3	Alton W (3–0 sets)	3	6	2.00	3	12	.250	2	0	1	0.00	8	.875	.	.	.	.	8.5	4.88
4	Pekin L (2–3 sets)	5	11	2.20	3	23	.348	3	0	2	0.00	13	.846	1	0.20	2	.500	13.5	4.98
6	Teutopolis L (1–3 sets)	4	12	3.00	14	30	-.067	11	4	1	1.00	19	.947	0	0.00	1	.000	16.5	6.09
8	Portland L (0–3 sets)	3	5	1.67	5	14	.000	2	1	1	0.33	8	.875	.	.	.	.	6.5	3.76
9	San Diego W (3–1 sets)	4	14	3.50	2	25	.480	5	2	2	0.50	13	.846	.	.	.	.	16.5	7.92
14	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	9	3.00	3	17	.353	9	3	1	1.00	16	.938	0	0.00	1	.000	12.5	5.70
17	Tucson W (3–1 sets)	4	16	4.00	7	30	.300	12	1	3	0.25	23	.870	1	0.25	2	.500	19.0	8.86
22	Kentucky W (3–1 sets)	4	19	4.75	2	25	.680	11	2	2	0.50	20	.900	0	0.00	1	.000	22.5	9.15
25	San Diego W (3–2 sets)	5	15	3.00	9	31	.194	15	5	3	1.00	26	.885	.	.	.	.	22.5	7.18
30	Denali W (3–2 sets)	5	18	3.60	0	24	.750	7	1	3	0.20	17	.824	1	0.20	1	1.000	22.5	8.35
33	Carlsbad L (2–3 sets)	5	17	3.40	3	20	.700	2	0	4	0.00	13	.692	1	0.20	1	1.000	20.0	6.45
34	Portland L (2–3 sets)	5	13	2.60	5	24	.333	8	0	6	0.00	20	.700	1	0.20	1	1.000	16.0	5.30
35	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	3	1.00	2	9	.111	2	1	1	0.33	8	.875	.	.	.	.	4.0	3.56
40	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	9	3.00	5	17	.235	2	0	1	0.00	9	.889	.	.	.	.	10.0	5.57
44	Ames L (2–3 sets)	5	20	4.00	6	36	.389	7	2	3	0.40	21	.857	.	.	.	.	23.5	7.14
45	Baton Rouge L (1–3 sets)	4	12	3.00	5	27	.259	6	1	2	0.25	18	.889	.	.	.	.	14.0	6.77
Total		69	205	2.97	79	378	.333	114	24	38	0.35	269	.859	5	0.07	11	.455	257.0	6.23

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	Quincy W (3–1 sets)	4	0	4	4	1	1.00	7	1.75	9	1.95	21	3	.857	9.0	4.32
3	Alton W (3–0 sets)	3	0	5	5	0	1.67	4	1.33	10	2.18	17	2	.882	8.5	4.88
4	Pekin L (2–3 sets)	5	0	5	5	0	1.00	2	0.40	26	2.35	43	2	.953	13.5	4.98
6	Teutopolis L (1–3 sets)	4	0	1	1	0	0.25	10	2.50	9	1.90	21	2	.905	16.5	6.09
8	Portland L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	4	1.33	10	2.20	20	1	.950	6.5	3.76
9	San Diego W (3–1 sets)	4	0	1	1	0	0.25	8	2.00	22	2.55	33	1	.970	16.5	7.92
14	Ames W (3–0 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	2	0.67	5	1.82	17	3	.824	12.5	5.70
17	Tucson W (3–1 sets)	4	1	2	3	0	0.75	5	1.25	9	2.38	16	0	1.000	19.0	8.86
22	Kentucky W (3–1 sets)	4	0	3	3	0	0.75	6	1.50	16	2.32	28	2	.929	22.5	9.15
25	San Diego W (3–2 sets)	5	0	5	5	0	1.00	4	0.80	14	2.21	29	2	.931	22.5	7.18
30	Denali W (3–2 sets)	5	0	7	7	0	1.40	2	0.40	12	2.56	18	0	1.000	22.5	8.35
33	Carlsbad L (2–3 sets)	5	1	4	5	0	1.00	5	1.00	16	2.15	33	1	.970	20.0	6.45
34	Portland L (2–3 sets)	5	0	6	6	0	1.20	3	0.60	15	1.98	40	4	.900	16.0	5.30
35	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	9	2.36	14	0	1.000	4.0	3.56
40	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	1	0.67	2	0.67	15	2.03	32	3	.906	10.0	5.57
44	Ames L (2–3 sets)	5	0	3	3	0	0.60	2	0.40	18	2.06	35	3	.914	23.5	7.14
45	Baton Rouge L (1–3 sets)	4	1	0	1	1	0.25	6	1.50	22	2.34	35	1	.971	14.0	6.77
Total		69	3	50	53	3	0.77	75	1.09	237	2.20	452	30	.934	257.0	6.23