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	1	0.33	0	1	1.000	2	0	2	0.00	10	.800	22	7.33	72	.306	1.0	2.92
9	Dallas W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	1	0.00	7	.857	31	10.33	74	.419	0.5	4.90
10	Tucson L (2–3 sets)	5	0	0.00	0	6	.000	10	2	2	0.40	24	.917	49	9.80	95	.516	3.0	5.02
15	Baton Rouge W (3–1 sets)	4	0	0.00	0	2	.000	5	0	7	0.00	16	.563	42	10.50	92	.457	2.0	6.14
17	Pekin W (3–2 sets)	5	1	0.20	1	3	.000	10	1	2	0.20	21	.905	57	11.40	103	.553	3.5	7.10
18	Teutopolis L (2–3 sets)	5	3	0.60	1	10	.200	7	0	6	0.00	20	.700	48	9.60	99	.485	3.0	5.18
21	Cincinnati W (3–2 sets)	5	1	0.20	1	4	.000	4	1	4	0.20	15	.733	44	8.80	99	.444	3.5	3.76
25	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	3	.000	6	3	0	1.00	14	1.000	30	10.00	60	.500	4.0	5.21
29	San Diego L (2–3 sets)	5	0	0.00	0	1	.000	11	1	5	0.20	24	.792	52	10.40	106	.491	1.0	5.45
34	San Jose L (2–3 sets)	5	3	0.60	0	6	.500	9	3	3	0.60	21	.857	52	10.40	88	.591	7.0	6.43
39	Albuquerque L (2–3 sets)	5	2	0.40	0	5	.400	3	0	3	0.00	17	.824	56	11.20	104	.538	2.0	5.06
Total		48	11	0.23	3	41	.195	68	11	35	0.23	189	.815	483	10.06	992	.487	30.5	5.20

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	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	.	.	.	.	.	1.0	2.92
9	Dallas W (3–0 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	5	1.67	.	.	.	.	.	0.5	4.90
10	Tucson L (2–3 sets)	5	0	2	2	0	0.40	3	0.60	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	5.02
15	Baton Rouge W (3–1 sets)	4	0	4	4	0	1.00	5	1.25	.	.	.	.	.	2.0	6.14
17	Pekin W (3–2 sets)	5	0	3	3	0	0.60	5	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	3.5	7.10
18	Teutopolis L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.40	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	5.18
21	Cincinnati W (3–2 sets)	5	1	1	2	1	0.40	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	3.5	3.76
25	Columbia L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	5.21
29	San Diego L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.40	.	.	.	.	.	1.0	5.45
34	San Jose L (2–3 sets)	5	0	2	2	0	0.40	6	1.20	.	.	.	.	.	7.0	6.43
39	Albuquerque L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.40	.	.	.	.	.	2.0	5.06
Total		48	1	15	16	1	0.33	46	0.96	.	.	.	.	.	30.5	5.20