Players

Bobby Randolph Sophomore Setter (S)
Player Skills
SERVING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	ATTACKING	DEFENSE	SETTING
13	-	14	13	14	13

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	Cincinnati W (3–1 sets)	4	3	0.75	1	8	.250	4	1	2	0.25	12	.833	43	10.75	80	.538	6.0	6.54
2	Spokane L (1–3 sets)	4	2	0.50	1	8	.125	4	0	4	0.00	15	.733	32	8.00	101	.317	4.5	5.19
3	Ames L (1–3 sets)	4	4	1.00	0	9	.444	5	1	5	0.25	13	.615	32	8.00	99	.323	6.0	5.02
5	Burlington L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	3	.000	0	0	0	0.00	6	1.000	18	6.00	62	.290	1.5	2.50
6	San Diego L (2–3 sets)	5	3	0.60	0	9	.333	6	0	2	0.00	15	.867	52	10.40	120	.433	6.0	6.89
8	Schenectady L (0–3 sets)	3	2	0.67	0	4	.500	0	0	2	0.00	6	.667	30	10.00	62	.484	2.0	4.16
9	Kentucky W (3–2 sets)	5	3	0.60	2	8	.125	6	1	3	0.20	17	.824	55	11.00	96	.573	5.0	5.80
10	Cincinnati L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	0	7	.571	3	1	1	0.33	9	.889	24	8.00	58	.414	6.5	4.37
13	Alton L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	2	3	-.333	4	1	1	0.33	13	.923	33	11.00	65	.508	2.5	5.58
16	San Jose L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	2	.000	4	0	1	0.00	10	.900	24	8.00	66	.364	0.5	3.18
18	Portland W (3–0 sets)	3	4	1.33	0	4	1.000	3	0	1	0.00	9	.889	34	11.33	60	.567	6.0	8.00
19	Cincinnati L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	2	.000	0	0	1	0.00	5	.800	34	11.33	62	.548	1.5	5.63
22	Tucson L (1–3 sets)	4	1	0.25	0	3	.333	3	0	4	0.00	11	.636	40	10.00	89	.449	2.0	5.26
25	Teutopolis L (1–3 sets)	4	3	0.75	0	6	.500	5	1	2	0.25	16	.875	55	13.75	104	.529	4.5	8.84
29	Manitowoc L (2–3 sets)	5	4	0.80	1	7	.429	4	0	2	0.00	15	.867	53	10.60	90	.589	4.5	5.20
34	Schenectady L (2–3 sets)	5	3	0.60	0	6	.500	9	0	7	0.00	24	.708	60	12.00	106	.566	4.5	7.99
41	Sheboygan L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	0	3	.333	1	0	2	0.00	7	.714	28	9.33	68	.412	2.0	4.63
Total		64	38	0.59	7	92	.337	61	6	40	0.09	203	.803	647	10.11	1388	.466	65.5	5.58

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	Cincinnati W (3–1 sets)	4	0	4	4	0	1.00	3	0.75	.	.	.	.	.	6.0	6.54
2	Spokane L (1–3 sets)	4	0	5	5	0	1.25	7	1.75	.	.	.	.	.	4.5	5.19
3	Ames L (1–3 sets)	4	0	2	2	1	0.50	9	2.25	.	.	.	.	.	6.0	5.02
5	Burlington L (0–3 sets)	3	0	3	3	1	1.00	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	1.5	2.50
6	San Diego L (2–3 sets)	5	0	6	6	0	1.20	6	1.20	.	.	.	.	.	6.0	6.89
8	Schenectady L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	2.0	4.16
9	Kentucky W (3–2 sets)	5	0	2	2	0	0.40	3	0.60	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	5.80
10	Cincinnati L (0–3 sets)	3	1	1	2	0	0.67	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	6.5	4.37
13	Alton L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	2.5	5.58
16	San Jose L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	0.5	3.18
18	Portland W (3–0 sets)	3	1	2	3	0	1.00	9	3.00	.	.	.	.	.	6.0	8.00
19	Cincinnati L (0–3 sets)	3	1	1	2	0	0.67	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	1.5	5.63
22	Tucson L (1–3 sets)	4	0	2	2	1	0.50	7	1.75	.	.	.	.	.	2.0	5.26
25	Teutopolis L (1–3 sets)	4	0	1	1	0	0.25	5	1.25	.	.	.	.	.	4.5	8.84
29	Manitowoc L (2–3 sets)	5	0	1	1	0	0.20	2	0.40	.	.	.	.	.	4.5	5.20
34	Schenectady L (2–3 sets)	5	0	3	3	1	0.60	5	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	4.5	7.99
41	Sheboygan L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	1	0.33	.	.	.	.	.	2.0	4.63
Total		64	3	37	40	4	0.63	67	1.05	.	.	.	.	.	65.5	5.58