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
3	Burlington L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	1	1	0.33	10	.900	4	1.33	7	.571	1.0	5.30
6	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1	1	0.33	8	.875	4	1.33	10	.400	1.0	5.25
9	Carlsbad W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	4	1	4	0.25	12	.667	6	1.50	16	.375	1.0	7.08
12	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	0	0.00	6	1.000	1	0.33	2	.500	0.0	3.35
15	Schenectady W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	13	0	0	0.00	20	1.000	3	0.75	9	.333	0.0	6.93
17	Carlsbad W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	5	0	3	0.00	15	.800	3	0.60	15	.200	0.0	5.50
30	Antioch L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	3	0	1.00	12	1.000	3	1.00	7	.429	3.0	7.31
Total		25	.	.	.	.	.	33	6	9	0.24	83	.892	24	0.96	66	.364	6.0	5.82

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
3	Burlington L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	7	2.13	15	1	.933	1.0	5.30
6	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	5	2.27	11	0	1.000	1.0	5.25
9	Carlsbad W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	12	3.00	11	2.23	22	1	.955	1.0	7.08
12	Nashville L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	4	2.25	8	0	1.000	0.0	3.35
15	Schenectady W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	9	2.25	9	2.35	17	0	1.000	0.0	6.93
17	Carlsbad W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	9	1.80	15	2.32	25	0	1.000	0.0	5.50
30	Antioch L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	8	2.67	9	2.31	16	1	.938	3.0	7.31
Total		25	.	.	.	.	.	51	2.04	60	2.27	114	3	.974	6.0	5.82