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
3	Sheboygan W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	3	1	3	0.20	10	.700	2	0.40	10	.200	1.0	8.78
5	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	2	0.00	6	.667	2	0.67	7	.286	0.0	3.50
7	Arlington L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	1	0	0.33	8	1.000	2	0.67	6	.333	1.0	6.90
11	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	0	0.00	3	1.000	1	0.33	4	.250	0.0	3.85
14	Ames L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	1	0.00	5	.800	3	1.00	6	.500	0.0	3.70
19	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	0	0.00	6	1.000	0	0.00	1	.000	0.0	5.60
25	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	2	0.00	5	.600	4	1.33	6	.667	0.0	3.68
26	Teutopolis L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	6	1	0	0.20	14	1.000	5	1.00	10	.500	1.0	3.90
29	Arlington L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	4	0	1	0.00	12	.917	4	1.00	7	.571	0.0	6.10
Total		32	.	.	.	.	.	17	3	9	0.09	69	.870	23	0.72	57	.404	3.0	5.11

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
3	Sheboygan W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	23	4.60	12	2.32	22	1	.955	1.0	8.78
5	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	6	2.00	12	1	.917	0.0	3.50
7	Arlington L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	12	2.44	18	1	.944	1.0	6.90
11	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	9	2.27	15	2	.867	0.0	3.85
14	Ames L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	9	2.00	17	3	.824	0.0	3.70
19	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	11	2.16	19	2	.895	0.0	5.60
25	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	9	2.25	16	2	.875	0.0	3.68
26	Teutopolis L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.20	10	1.91	23	1	.957	1.0	3.90
29	Arlington L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	9	2.25	5	2.09	11	0	1.000	0.0	6.10
Total		32	.	.	.	.	.	58	1.81	83	2.16	153	13	.915	3.0	5.11