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
1	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	12	4.00	6	21	.286	0	0	3	0.00	5	.400	.	.	.	.	12.5	5.78
2	Portland L (0–3 sets)	3	10	3.33	6	27	.148	3	0	1	0.00	10	.900	.	.	.	.	10.5	6.99
5	Ames L (1–3 sets)	4	7	1.75	6	17	.059	5	2	2	0.50	13	.846	.	.	.	.	9.5	3.86
7	Quincy L (0–3 sets)	3	2	0.67	5	16	-.188	6	1	0	0.33	10	1.000	.	.	.	.	3.0	3.40
11	Portland L (0–3 sets)	3	8	2.67	0	10	.800	3	1	0	0.33	10	1.000	.	.	.	.	9.0	4.18
13	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	8	2.67	3	13	.385	1	0	1	0.00	7	.857	.	.	.	.	8.5	4.84
15	Alton L (2–3 sets)	5	22	4.40	9	43	.302	5	0	3	0.00	16	.813	.	.	.	.	24.0	8.66
17	San Jose L (0–3 sets)	3	12	4.00	5	22	.318	3	1	2	0.33	11	.818	.	.	.	.	14.0	6.76
25	Tucson W (3–1 sets)	4	18	4.50	4	27	.519	2	0	6	0.00	13	.538	.	.	.	.	20.5	8.46
26	Teutopolis W (3–0 sets)	3	4	1.33	0	6	.667	7	0	1	0.00	13	.923	.	.	.	.	5.0	7.08
29	Quincy L (1–3 sets)	4	20	5.00	7	38	.342	3	0	2	0.00	11	.818	.	.	.	.	20.5	7.39
Total		38	123	3.24	51	240	.300	38	5	21	0.13	119	.824	.	.	.	.	137.0	6.13

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	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	12.5	5.78
2	Portland L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	1	0.33	7	2.33	.	.	.	.	.	10.5	6.99
5	Ames L (1–3 sets)	4	0	1	1	1	0.25	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	9.5	3.86
7	Quincy L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	3.40
11	Portland L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	9.0	4.18
13	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	8.5	4.84
15	Alton L (2–3 sets)	5	0	4	4	0	0.80	6	1.20	.	.	.	.	.	24.0	8.66
17	San Jose L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0	1	0	0.33	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	14.0	6.76
25	Tucson W (3–1 sets)	4	1	3	4	1	1.00	4	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	20.5	8.46
26	Teutopolis W (3–0 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	6	2.00	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	7.08
29	Quincy L (1–3 sets)	4	0	1	1	0	0.25	9	2.25	.	.	.	.	.	20.5	7.39
Total		38	2	14	16	3	0.42	40	1.05	.	.	.	.	.	137.0	6.13