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
2	Schenectady L (2–3 sets)	5	3	0.60	0	4	.750	4	1	3	0.20	18	.833	33	6.60	97	.340	5.0	2.72
4	Sheboygan W (3–2 sets)	5	2	0.40	1	4	.250	4	0	4	0.00	16	.750	42	8.40	92	.457	5.5	4.81
8	Spokane L (1–3 sets)	4	1	0.25	1	2	.000	8	2	6	0.50	19	.684	48	12.00	99	.485	3.5	7.18
12	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	1	4	.000	4	0	1	0.00	12	.917	33	11.00	73	.452	1.5	6.00
14	Cincinnati L (2–3 sets)	5	2	0.40	0	2	1.000	7	2	1	0.40	19	.947	46	9.20	93	.495	5.0	5.10
17	Pekin L (1–3 sets)	4	3	0.75	0	5	.600	4	0	3	0.00	16	.813	51	12.75	81	.630	3.0	7.72
31	Ames L (2–3 sets)	5	1	0.20	0	2	.500	4	0	4	0.00	17	.765	55	11.00	103	.534	2.0	5.12
Total		31	13	0.42	3	23	.435	35	5	22	0.16	117	.812	308	9.94	638	.483	25.5	5.52

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	Schenectady L (2–3 sets)	5	0	2	2	0	0.40	3	0.60	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	2.72
4	Sheboygan W (3–2 sets)	5	1	5	6	0	1.20	1	0.20	.	.	.	.	.	5.5	4.81
8	Spokane L (1–3 sets)	4	0	1	1	0	0.25	4	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	3.5	7.18
12	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	7	2.33	.	.	.	.	.	1.5	6.00
14	Cincinnati L (2–3 sets)	5	0	2	2	1	0.40	8	1.60	.	.	.	.	.	5.0	5.10
17	Pekin L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.25	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	7.72
31	Ames L (2–3 sets)	5	0	2	2	0	0.40	3	0.60	.	.	.	.	.	2.0	5.12
Total		31	1	13	14	1	0.45	31	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	25.5	5.52