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
8	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	1	5	-.200	1	0	4	0.00	8	.500	30	10.00	75	.400	0.5	4.06
11	Nashville L (1–3 sets)	4	1	0.25	0	4	.250	4	1	2	0.25	14	.857	45	11.25	97	.464	3.0	5.80
14	Starkville W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	12	2	3	0.67	18	.833	28	9.33	51	.549	2.5	5.97
18	Burlington L (1–3 sets)	4	2	0.50	1	6	.167	5	2	3	0.50	16	.813	32	8.00	88	.364	4.0	3.56
22	Mat-Su L (1–3 sets)	4	0	0.00	2	3	-.667	4	0	2	0.00	15	.867	38	9.50	86	.442	1.0	4.88
26	Dallas L (0–3 sets)	3	0	0.00	1	3	-.333	6	2	1	0.67	15	.933	27	9.00	66	.409	2.0	3.66
31	Albuquerque W (3–2 sets)	5	1	0.20	1	5	.000	8	2	1	0.40	17	.941	49	9.80	94	.521	4.5	5.76
36	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	2	0.67	0	3	.667	1	0	2	0.00	9	.778	18	6.00	49	.367	3.0	2.34
41	St. Charles L (0–3 sets)	3	3	1.00	1	4	.500	3	1	2	0.33	13	.846	32	10.67	60	.533	4.0	5.60
46	Ames L (1–3 sets)	4	3	0.75	0	7	.429	5	1	3	0.25	14	.786	44	11.00	99	.444	5.5	6.32
Total		36	12	0.33	7	40	.125	49	11	23	0.31	139	.835	343	9.53	765	.448	30.0	4.80

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
8	Teutopolis L (0–3 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	3	1.00	.	.	.	.	.	0.5	4.06
11	Nashville L (1–3 sets)	4	0	2	2	1	0.50	1	0.25	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	5.80
14	Starkville W (3–0 sets)	3	0	1	1	0	0.33	9	3.00	.	.	.	.	.	2.5	5.97
18	Burlington L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	3	0.75	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	3.56
22	Mat-Su L (1–3 sets)	4	0	2	2	0	0.50	5	1.25	.	.	.	.	.	1.0	4.88
26	Dallas L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	2.0	3.66
31	Albuquerque W (3–2 sets)	5	0	3	3	0	0.60	7	1.40	.	.	.	.	.	4.5	5.76
36	Pekin L (0–3 sets)	3	1	0	1	0	0.33	2	0.67	.	.	.	.	.	3.0	2.34
41	St. Charles L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.33	.	.	.	.	.	4.0	5.60
46	Ames L (1–3 sets)	4	1	1	2	0	0.50	5	1.25	.	.	.	.	.	5.5	6.32
Total		36	2	10	12	1	0.33	39	1.08	.	.	.	.	.	30.0	4.80