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	Manitowoc W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	4	1	1	0.20	14	.929	4	0.80	8	.500	1.0	6.05
6	Albuquerque W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.25	7	.714	0.0	7.36
9	Baton Rouge L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.20	10	.600	0.0	5.90
12	Schenectady W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.50	10	.600	0.0	7.09
13	Mendon W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.50	8	.250	0.0	7.28
17	Nashville W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	6	1.000	0.0	8.49
18	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	4	.500	0.0	4.63
21	San Jose W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	4	0.80	5	.800	0.0	6.48
26	Mat-Su W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	6	3	2	0.75	16	.875	3	0.75	4	.750	3.0	5.25
29	Sheboygan L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.25	6	.833	0.0	4.10
Total		41	.	.	.	.	.	10	4	3	0.10	30	.900	43	1.05	68	.632	4.0	6.26

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	Manitowoc W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	12	2.40	15	2.14	35	3	.914	1.0	6.05
6	Albuquerque W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	14	3.50	11	1.95	22	3	.864	0.0	7.36
9	Baton Rouge L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.20	18	2.43	28	1	.964	0.0	5.90
12	Schenectady W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	13	3.25	7	2.00	20	0	1.000	0.0	7.09
13	Mendon W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	10	2.50	11	2.40	20	0	1.000	0.0	7.28
17	Nashville W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	14	4.67	6	2.18	11	1	.909	0.0	8.49
18	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	7	2.33	12	1	.917	0.0	4.63
21	San Jose W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.40	15	2.46	24	0	1.000	0.0	6.48
26	Mat-Su W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.50	16	2.09	32	3	.906	3.0	5.25
29	Sheboygan L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.00	18	2.18	34	3	.912	0.0	4.10
Total		41	.	.	.	.	.	89	2.17	124	2.21	238	15	.937	4.0	6.26