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	Schenectady L (1–3 sets)	4	1	0.25	2	6	-.167	3	2	3	0.50	13	.769	28	7.00	92	.304	3.0	2.16
9	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	1	.000	2	0	4	0.00	11	.636	23	7.67	67	.343	0.0	2.96
11	Spokane L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	0	1	.000	2	1	1	0.33	10	.900	32	10.67	65	.492	1.0	4.48
13	Cincinnati L (1–3 sets)	4	1	0.25	0	6	.167	5	1	2	0.25	16	.875	31	7.75	75	.413	4.5	3.98
15	Portland L (2–3 sets)	5	2	0.40	4	13	-.154	8	1	5	0.20	20	.750	34	6.80	101	.337	4.0	3.76
18	Pekin L (2–3 sets)	5	0	0.00	0	1	.000	6	1	2	0.20	18	.889	44	8.80	114	.386	3.0	4.68
21	Carlsbad L (2–3 sets)	5	1	0.20	0	9	.111	4	1	6	0.20	18	.667	59	11.80	121	.488	2.0	6.24
29	Manitowoc L (2–3 sets)	5	0	0.00	1	4	-.250	6	1	7	0.20	19	.632	55	11.00	125	.440	2.5	5.60
34	Burlington L (2–3 sets)	5	0	0.00	0	2	.000	2	0	4	0.00	14	.714	44	8.80	95	.463	2.5	4.11
39	Alton L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0.33	0	2	.500	1	0	2	0.00	9	.778	27	9.00	63	.429	1.0	3.32
Total		42	6	0.14	7	45	-.022	39	8	36	0.19	148	.757	377	8.98	918	.411	23.5	4.13

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	Schenectady L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	1	0.25	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	2.16
9	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.33	.	.	.	.	.	0.0	2.96
11	Spokane L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	1.0	4.48
13	Cincinnati L (1–3 sets)	4	2	1	3	0	0.75	1	0.25	.	.	.	.	.	4.5	3.98
15	Portland L (2–3 sets)	5	1	0	1	1	0.20	7	1.40	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	3.76
18	Pekin L (2–3 sets)	5	1	2	3	0	0.60	7	1.40	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	4.68
21	Carlsbad L (2–3 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	6	1.20	.	.	.	.	.	2.0	6.24
29	Manitowoc L (2–3 sets)	5	0	3	3	0	0.60	5	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	2.5	5.60
34	Burlington L (2–3 sets)	5	1	3	4	1	0.80	3	0.60	.	.	.	.	.	2.5	4.11
39	Alton L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	1.0	3.32
Total		42	5	9	14	2	0.33	39	0.93	.	.	.	.	.	23.5	4.13