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	Pekin W (3–0 sets)	3	1	0.33	0	1	1.000	6	1	2	0.33	12	.833	21	7.00	50	.420	3.0	4.25
6	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	0	1	1.000	0	0	0	0.00	7	1.000	24	8.00	63	.381	3.0	4.34
9	Antioch L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	1	6	.000	1	1	1	0.33	8	.875	30	10.00	64	.469	3.0	4.79
10	Manitowoc L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	1	5	.000	0	0	1	0.00	7	.857	32	10.67	60	.533	2.0	5.19
15	St. Charles W (3–2 sets)	5	0	0.00	0	5	.000	4	1	2	0.20	14	.857	61	12.20	123	.496	5.0	7.92
17	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	2	.000	3	0	0	0.00	9	1.000	32	10.67	62	.516	0.5	4.88
18	Columbia W (3–1 sets)	4	3	0.75	0	6	.500	9	1	1	0.25	19	.947	55	13.75	84	.655	5.0	9.52
21	San Jose W (3–2 sets)	5	2	0.40	1	9	.111	2	1	1	0.20	11	.909	50	10.00	104	.481	5.5	5.64
25	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	5	.000	2	0	3	0.00	9	.667	27	9.00	59	.458	0.0	3.20
26	Tucson L (2–3 sets)	5	1	0.20	0	3	.333	8	2	1	0.40	18	.944	55	11.00	90	.611	5.0	6.12
33	Kentucky L (1–3 sets)	4	3	0.75	0	7	.429	12	1	3	0.25	20	.850	44	11.00	88	.500	5.5	7.21
Total		41	13	0.32	3	50	.200	47	8	15	0.20	134	.888	431	10.51	847	.509	37.5	5.73

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	Pekin W (3–0 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	4.25
6	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	1	2	3	1	1.00	4	1.33	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	4.34
9	Antioch L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	2	0.67	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	4.79
10	Manitowoc L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	1	0.67	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	2.0	5.19
15	St. Charles W (3–2 sets)	5	1	6	7	0	1.40	9	1.80	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	7.92
17	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	0.5	4.88
18	Columbia W (3–1 sets)	4	1	0	1	1	0.25	6	1.50	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	9.52
21	San Jose W (3–2 sets)	5	0	5	5	0	1.00	6	1.20	.	.	.	.	.	5.5	5.64
25	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	0.0	3.20
26	Tucson L (2–3 sets)	5	1	2	3	1	0.60	5	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	6.12
33	Kentucky L (1–3 sets)	4	1	1	2	0	0.50	6	1.50	.	.	.	.	.	5.5	7.21
Total		41	5	23	28	6	0.68	46	1.12	.	.	.	.	.	37.5	5.73