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
6	Cincinnati L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	1	0.00	5	.800	2	0.67	9	.222	0.0	4.18
9	Dallas W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	16	2	1	0.67	20	.950	4	1.33	6	.667	2.0	7.58
10	Tucson L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	4	0	1	0.00	14	.929	4	0.80	7	.571	0.0	6.28
14	Mat-Su L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	1	0.00	4	.750	1	0.33	3	.333	0.0	5.54
15	Baton Rouge W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	3	0.00	10	.700	6	1.50	11	.545	0.0	6.56
17	Pekin W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	8	1	5	0.20	17	.706	5	1.00	9	.556	1.0	6.20
18	Teutopolis L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	2	0.00	11	.818	4	0.80	10	.400	0.0	7.81
21	Cincinnati W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	1	0.00	8	.875	3	0.60	8	.375	0.0	7.83
22	Teutopolis W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	4	2	3	0.40	12	.750	6	1.20	10	.600	2.0	8.06
25	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	3	0.00	6	.500	0	0.00	2	.000	0.0	3.70
26	Sheboygan L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	9	2	2	0.40	18	.889	6	1.20	7	.857	2.0	5.83
29	San Diego L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	1	0.00	12	.917	8	1.60	11	.727	0.0	6.11
34	San Jose L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	9	2	2	0.40	18	.889	8	1.60	11	.727	2.0	6.34
39	Albuquerque L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	3	2	0	0.40	13	1.000	4	0.80	4	1.000	2.0	4.20
44	Mat-Su W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	2	0.00	8	.750	3	1.00	3	1.000	0.0	5.20
45	Ames L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	1	1	3	0.20	11	.727	6	1.20	8	.750	1.0	3.70
Total		69	.	.	.	.	.	65	12	31	0.17	187	.834	70	1.01	119	.588	12.0	5.95

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
6	Cincinnati L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.33	8	2.33	15	0	1.000	0.0	4.18
9	Dallas W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	14	4.67	4	1.80	10	2	.800	2.0	7.58
10	Tucson L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	8	1.60	17	2.33	27	3	.889	0.0	6.28
14	Mat-Su L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	17	2.57	23	0	1.000	0.0	5.54
15	Baton Rouge W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	10	2.50	12	2.20	25	1	.960	0.0	6.56
17	Pekin W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	9	1.80	13	2.07	28	2	.929	1.0	6.20
18	Teutopolis L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	15	3.00	14	2.33	27	1	.963	0.0	7.81
21	Cincinnati W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	9	1.80	15	2.54	24	0	1.000	0.0	7.83
22	Teutopolis W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	10	2.00	13	2.53	19	1	.947	2.0	8.06
25	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	7	2.07	15	1	.933	0.0	3.70
26	Sheboygan L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	12	2.40	12	2.06	31	1	.968	2.0	5.83
29	San Diego L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	11	2.20	24	2.25	40	3	.925	0.0	6.11
34	San Jose L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.40	14	2.38	21	1	.952	2.0	6.34
39	Albuquerque L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.00	16	2.14	37	2	.946	2.0	4.20
44	Mat-Su W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	5	1.85	13	3	.769	0.0	5.20
45	Ames L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	3	0.60	13	2.09	33	1	.970	1.0	3.70
Total		69	.	.	.	.	.	125	1.81	204	2.23	388	22	.943	12.0	5.95