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
1	Manitowoc W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	10	2	3	0.67	14	.786	4	1.33	9	.444	2.0	8.02
4	Burlington W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	2	1	1	0.25	9	.889	5	1.25	5	1.000	1.0	6.28
6	Carlsbad L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	2	0.00	14	.857	3	0.75	10	.300	0.0	6.85
7	Cincinnati L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	9	0	1	0.00	23	.957	8	1.60	11	.727	0.0	8.82
9	Pekin W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	3	0.00	6	.500	1	0.33	5	.200	0.0	4.78
10	Manitowoc W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1	0	0.33	9	1.000	3	1.00	6	.500	1.0	8.03
12	Dallas L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	0	0.00	7	1.000	0	0.00	5	.000	0.0	7.33
14	Spokane W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	0	0.00	6	1.000	1	0.33	4	.250	0.0	4.10
15	Columbia W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	7	3	0	1.00	12	1.000	3	1.00	7	.429	3.0	6.98
21	Baton Rouge W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	8	1	2	0.20	16	.875	5	1.00	8	.625	1.0	9.02
23	Cincinnati W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	10	0	1	0.00	22	.955	4	0.80	7	.571	0.0	7.55
25	Mat-Su W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	2	0.00	9	.778	0	0.00	7	.000	0.0	9.92
26	Antioch W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	8	2	2	0.40	17	.882	5	1.00	5	1.000	2.0	6.88
30	Burlington W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	1	0.00	9	.889	5	1.25	3	1.667	0.0	10.00
32	Tucson W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	7	1	0	0.33	12	1.000	8	2.67	5	1.600	1.0	10.00
34	Sheboygan W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	0	1	0.00	12	.917	3	1.00	10	.300	0.0	7.15
37	San Jose L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	2	2	0.67	12	.833	0	0.00	8	.000	2.0	5.43
39	Alton W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	7	1	2	0.20	18	.889	3	0.60	15	.200	1.0	8.56
40	Teutopolis W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	5	0	4	0.00	17	.765	2	0.40	6	.333	0.0	5.90
Total		73	.	.	.	.	.	103	14	27	0.19	244	.889	63	0.86	136	.463	14.0	7.45

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	Manitowoc W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	11	3.67	3	2.00	6	1	.833	2.0	8.02
4	Burlington W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.25	14	2.45	22	1	.955	1.0	6.28
6	Carlsbad L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.75	12	2.42	19	0	1.000	0.0	6.85
7	Cincinnati L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	12	2.40	18	2.67	24	0	1.000	0.0	8.82
9	Pekin W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	8	2.67	1	1.63	8	0	1.000	0.0	4.78
10	Manitowoc W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	10	3.33	5	2.18	11	0	1.000	1.0	8.03
12	Dallas L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	15	2.45	22	1	.955	0.0	7.33
14	Spokane W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	0	1.80	5	0	1.000	0.0	4.10
15	Columbia W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	8	2.67	8	2.21	14	1	.929	3.0	6.98
21	Baton Rouge W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	19	3.80	8	2.33	15	0	1.000	1.0	9.02
23	Cincinnati W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	9	1.80	13	2.44	25	0	1.000	0.0	7.55
25	Mat-Su W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	15	3.75	11	2.57	14	1	.929	0.0	9.92
26	Antioch W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	16	3.20	6	1.93	15	2	.867	2.0	6.88
30	Burlington W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	15	3.75	16	2.80	20	0	1.000	0.0	10.00
32	Tucson W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	11	3.67	7	2.50	10	0	1.000	1.0	10.00
34	Sheboygan W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.33	7	2.50	10	0	1.000	0.0	7.15
37	San Jose L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	9	2.12	17	1	.941	2.0	5.43
39	Alton W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	11	2.20	10	2.69	13	0	1.000	1.0	8.56
40	Teutopolis W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	10	2.00	10	2.16	19	1	.947	0.0	5.90
Total		73	.	.	.	.	.	187	2.56	173	2.37	289	9	.969	14.0	7.45