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
5	Quincy W (3–1 sets)	4	3	0.75	0	6	.500	5	0	3	0.00	18	.833	54	13.50	80	.675	5.0	9.48
6	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	2	.000	4	0	2	0.00	12	.833	33	11.00	70	.471	1.5	6.02
7	Portland W (3–2 sets)	5	3	0.60	2	5	.200	9	2	5	0.40	21	.762	58	11.60	90	.644	8.0	7.97
9	Tucson W (3–2 sets)	5	1	0.20	0	4	.250	10	3	3	0.60	23	.870	57	11.40	103	.553	5.0	6.74
10	Arlington W (3–0 sets)	3	3	1.00	1	4	.500	12	6	2	2.00	20	.900	35	11.67	48	.729	9.5	8.03
12	Mat-Su W (3–1 sets)	4	1	0.25	0	2	.500	14	4	1	1.00	24	.958	58	14.50	94	.617	6.5	10.00
13	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	3	1.00	1	4	.500	3	0	1	0.00	13	.923	43	14.33	68	.632	3.0	8.20
16	Albuquerque L (2–3 sets)	5	3	0.60	0	3	1.000	9	0	3	0.00	24	.875	60	12.00	99	.606	5.5	8.09
18	Schenectady L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	0	3	.333	6	0	3	0.00	15	.800	43	14.33	82	.524	2.0	9.57
29	Portland L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	0	4	.250	2	0	1	0.00	10	.900	28	9.33	70	.400	1.5	4.74
34	Dallas L (2–3 sets)	5	4	0.80	0	8	.500	8	0	2	0.00	20	.900	50	10.00	95	.526	5.0	5.92
Total		43	23	0.53	4	45	.422	82	15	26	0.35	200	.870	519	12.07	899	.577	52.5	7.71

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
5	Quincy W (3–1 sets)	4	0	4	4	2	1.00	3	0.75	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	9.48
6	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	0	3	3	0	1.00	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	1.5	6.02
7	Portland W (3–2 sets)	5	1	4	5	0	1.00	3	0.60	.	.	.	.	.	8.0	7.97
9	Tucson W (3–2 sets)	5	0	2	2	0	0.40	4	0.80	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	6.74
10	Arlington W (3–0 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	9.5	8.03
12	Mat-Su W (3–1 sets)	4	0	3	3	0	0.75	5	1.25	.	.	.	.	.	6.5	10.00
13	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	8.20
16	Albuquerque L (2–3 sets)	5	0	5	5	0	1.00	2	0.40	.	.	.	.	.	5.5	8.09
18	Schenectady L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	2.0	9.57
29	Portland L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	1.5	4.74
34	Dallas L (2–3 sets)	5	0	2	2	1	0.40	6	1.20	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	5.92
Total		43	1	27	28	3	0.65	36	0.84	.	.	.	.	.	52.5	7.71