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	New Orleans L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	2	0.00	5	.600	1	0.33	8	.125	0.0	8.08
7	Antioch L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	0	0	0.00	10	1.000	3	1.00	10	.300	0.0	5.23
11	New Orleans L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	0	0.00	1	.000	0.0	7.30
15	San Diego L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	4	0	1	0.00	9	.889	1	0.33	5	.200	0.0	7.70
16	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	1	0	0.33	10	1.000	2	0.67	3	.667	1.0	4.20
19	Antioch L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	0	0.00	5	1.000	0	0.00	4	.000	0.0	4.15
21	Portland L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0	1	0.00	8	.875	2	0.67	8	.250	0.0	7.03
26	Arlington L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	13	4	1	1.00	22	.955	1	0.25	10	.100	4.0	9.77
33	Manitowoc L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	5	0	4	0.00	14	.714	2	0.50	11	.182	0.0	8.57
35	Burlington L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	9	2	2	0.50	20	.900	4	1.00	10	.400	2.0	9.23
Total		33	.	.	.	.	.	40	7	11	0.21	103	.893	16	0.48	70	.229	7.0	7.13

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
2	New Orleans L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	8	2.67	8	2.58	12	0	1.000	0.0	8.08
7	Antioch L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	5	1.67	7	2.25	12	1	.917	0.0	5.23
11	New Orleans L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	7	2.33	3	2.60	5	0	1.000	0.0	7.30
15	San Diego L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	11	3.67	8	2.29	14	1	.929	0.0	7.70
16	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	7	2.33	4	1.80	10	2	.800	1.0	4.20
19	Antioch L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	4	2.00	13	0	1.000	0.0	4.15
21	Portland L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	9	3.00	5	2.20	10	0	1.000	0.0	7.03
26	Arlington L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	14	3.50	14	2.48	23	0	1.000	4.0	9.77
33	Manitowoc L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	11	2.75	16	2.52	25	0	1.000	0.0	8.57
35	Burlington L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	10	2.50	14	2.72	18	0	1.000	2.0	9.23
Total		33	.	.	.	.	.	88	2.67	83	2.38	142	4	.972	7.0	7.13