Players

Ian Lindsay 5 Outside Hitter (OH)
Player Skills
SERVING	RECEIVING	BLOCKING	ATTACKING	DEFENSE	SETTING
15	15	16	12	12	5

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
2	Mat-Su L (2–3 sets)	5	12	2.40	12	33	.000	4	0	4	0.00	19	.789	.	.	.	.	15.0	6.36
3	Cincinnati W (3–0 sets)	3	5	1.67	2	11	.273	9	2	3	0.67	16	.813	.	.	.	.	9.0	5.63
4	Carlsbad L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	4	12	.000	1	1	0	0.33	8	1.000	2	0.67	1	2.000	6.0	3.44
5	Tucson W (3–0 sets)	3	4	1.33	5	13	-.077	6	1	2	0.33	15	.867	1	0.33	1	1.000	7.0	4.13
6	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	9	3.00	2	15	.467	5	0	2	0.00	13	.846	.	.	.	.	9.5	7.08
8	Albuquerque W (3–0 sets)	3	5	1.67	3	11	.182	5	2	0	0.67	11	1.000	.	.	.	.	8.0	5.50
9	St. Charles L (2–3 sets)	5	6	1.20	4	20	.100	10	2	2	0.40	19	.895	0	0.00	1	.000	10.0	4.44
11	Mat-Su W (3–2 sets)	5	10	2.00	2	20	.400	8	4	3	0.80	21	.857	1	0.20	1	1.000	14.5	4.71
12	Merritt Island W (3–1 sets)	4	7	1.75	6	26	.038	7	0	3	0.00	14	.786	1	0.25	1	1.000	9.5	5.59
13	Carlsbad L (0–3 sets)	3	5	1.67	3	20	.100	1	1	2	0.33	9	.778	3	1.00	1	3.000	7.5	3.40
15	Baton Rouge L (2–3 sets)	5	6	1.20	5	16	.063	8	1	3	0.20	18	.833	0	0.00	1	.000	8.0	4.93
17	Schenectady L (0–3 sets)	3	3	1.00	5	16	-.125	2	0	1	0.00	7	.857	.	.	.	.	5.0	4.30
19	Carlsbad L (1–3 sets)	4	5	1.25	9	20	-.200	3	0	1	0.00	14	.929	2	0.50	1	2.000	5.0	3.63
21	Columbia L (1–3 sets)	4	7	1.75	8	27	-.037	6	2	3	0.50	17	.824	0	0.00	1	.000	10.5	5.24
22	Burlington L (0–3 sets)	3	4	1.33	4	12	.000	3	0	2	0.00	9	.778	0	0.00	1	.000	5.5	4.40
31	Manitowoc W (3–0 sets)	3	6	2.00	2	17	.235	4	0	2	0.00	12	.833	1	0.33	1	1.000	7.0	4.98
33	Mat-Su L (2–3 sets)	5	10	2.00	2	20	.400	9	2	1	0.40	19	.947	2	0.40	1	2.000	13.0	3.87
34	Albuquerque L (2–3 sets)	5	10	2.00	6	24	.167	12	4	3	0.80	25	.880	0	0.00	1	.000	15.5	5.43
36	Ames W (3–1 sets)	4	12	3.00	9	27	.111	6	3	3	0.75	15	.800	.	.	.	.	16.0	6.92
Total		73	130	1.78	93	360	.103	109	25	40	0.34	281	.858	14	0.19	13	1.077	181.5	4.95

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
2	Mat-Su L (2–3 sets)	5	0	6	6	0	1.20	9	1.80	15	2.48	25	0	1.000	15.0	6.36
3	Cincinnati W (3–0 sets)	3	0	4	4	0	1.33	3	1.00	6	2.50	8	1	.875	9.0	5.63
4	Carlsbad L (0–3 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	1	0.33	10	2.19	21	0	1.000	6.0	3.44
5	Tucson W (3–0 sets)	3	0	4	4	0	1.33	6	2.00	3	1.85	13	0	1.000	7.0	4.13
6	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	4	1.33	10	2.38	16	1	.938	9.5	7.08
8	Albuquerque W (3–0 sets)	3	0	2	2	1	0.67	8	2.67	13	2.47	17	2	.882	8.0	5.50
9	St. Charles L (2–3 sets)	5	0	4	4	2	0.80	11	2.20	6	2.00	20	1	.950	10.0	4.44
11	Mat-Su W (3–2 sets)	5	0	1	1	0	0.20	8	1.60	19	2.26	34	2	.941	14.5	4.71
12	Merritt Island W (3–1 sets)	4	0	5	5	0	1.25	6	1.50	15	2.57	21	1	.952	9.5	5.59
13	Carlsbad L (0–3 sets)	3	0	3	3	0	1.00	3	1.00	7	2.06	18	1	.944	7.5	3.40
15	Baton Rouge L (2–3 sets)	5	0	2	2	0	0.40	8	1.60	22	2.50	32	2	.938	8.0	4.93
17	Schenectady L (0–3 sets)	3	0	4	4	0	1.33	1	0.33	12	2.35	20	1	.950	5.0	4.30
19	Carlsbad L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.75	6	2.20	15	0	1.000	5.0	3.63
21	Columbia L (1–3 sets)	4	0	3	3	0	0.75	12	3.00	13	2.32	22	0	1.000	10.5	5.24
22	Burlington L (0–3 sets)	3	0	3	3	0	1.00	2	0.67	10	2.29	17	1	.941	5.5	4.40
31	Manitowoc W (3–0 sets)	3	0	2	2	0	0.67	7	2.33	8	2.21	14	1	.929	7.0	4.98
33	Mat-Su L (2–3 sets)	5	0	2	2	1	0.40	3	0.60	13	2.03	31	1	.968	13.0	3.87
34	Albuquerque L (2–3 sets)	5	0	3	3	0	0.60	8	1.60	13	2.31	26	1	.962	15.5	5.43
36	Ames W (3–1 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	4	1.00	7	2.38	13	0	1.000	16.0	6.92
Total		73	0	53	53	4	0.73	111	1.52	208	2.28	383	16	.958	181.5	4.95