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	Burlington L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	6	3	2	0.75	13	.846	3	0.75	5	.600	3.0	6.49
3	Tucson W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	0	1	0.00	10	.900	0	0.00	5	.000	0.0	9.99
6	Portland W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	6	1	1	0.25	12	.917	4	1.00	11	.364	1.0	8.68
12	Manitowoc W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	3	0.00	10	.700	1	0.25	8	.125	0.0	9.91
16	Baton Rouge L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	2	0.00	9	.778	5	1.25	10	.500	0.0	6.00
19	Burlington W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	0	2	0.00	9	.778	3	1.00	7	.429	0.0	9.03
23	Sheboygan L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	3	0.00	7	.571	3	1.00	7	.429	0.0	5.40
33	Albuquerque W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	4	0.00	11	.636	4	0.80	8	.500	0.0	8.43
38	Denali W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	12	2	0	0.50	20	1.000	6	1.50	6	1.000	2.0	5.10
43	Pekin L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	1	1	0	0.25	9	1.000	5	1.25	8	.625	1.0	7.01
Total		38	.	.	.	.	.	38	7	18	0.18	110	.836	34	0.89	75	.453	7.0	7.60

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	Burlington L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	4	1.00	13	2.58	19	0	1.000	3.0	6.49
3	Tucson W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	10	3.33	12	2.63	16	0	1.000	0.0	9.99
6	Portland W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	21	5.25	9	2.27	15	2	.867	1.0	8.68
12	Manitowoc W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	17	4.25	12	2.45	20	1	.950	0.0	9.91
16	Baton Rouge L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	8	2.00	11	2.14	21	1	.952	0.0	6.00
19	Burlington W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	12	4.00	5	2.33	9	0	1.000	0.0	9.03
23	Sheboygan L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1.00	11	2.42	19	0	1.000	0.0	5.40
33	Albuquerque W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	11	2.20	10	2.71	14	0	1.000	0.0	8.43
38	Denali W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.75	9	1.90	21	2	.905	2.0	5.10
43	Pekin L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.25	17	2.65	23	0	1.000	1.0	7.01
Total		38	.	.	.	.	.	98	2.58	109	2.40	177	6	.966	7.0	7.60