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	San Jose W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	7	1	2	0.25	14	.857	5	1.25	6	.833	1.0	8.53
2	Tucson W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	10	2	1	0.67	14	.929	5	1.67	9	.556	2.0	4.69
3	Baton Rouge W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	3	2	1	0.67	7	.857	2	0.67	6	.333	2.0	7.80
12	Baton Rouge W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	8	1	3	0.20	16	.813	4	0.80	8	.500	1.0	6.38
16	Mendon W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	3	2	1	0.40	12	.917	2	0.40	5	.400	2.0	5.40
20	Cincinnati L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	7	1	1	0.25	16	.938	1	0.25	3	.333	1.0	2.38
22	Ames W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	10	5	2	1.25	18	.889	6	1.50	10	.600	5.0	2.82
27	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	1	0	1	0.00	8	.875	2	0.67	5	.400	0.0	4.05
Total		31	.	.	.	.	.	49	14	12	0.45	105	.886	27	0.87	52	.519	14.0	5.26

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	San Jose W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	16	4.00	15	2.27	30	2	.933	1.0	8.53
2	Tucson W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	6	2.00	2	1.67	9	2	.778	2.0	4.69
3	Baton Rouge W (3–0 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	12	4.00	5	2.00	9	2	.778	2.0	7.80
12	Baton Rouge W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	15	3.00	15	1.86	36	6	.833	1.0	6.38
16	Mendon W (3–2 sets)	5	.	.	.	.	.	7	1.40	22	2.32	38	2	.947	2.0	5.40
20	Cincinnati L (1–3 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.50	16	1.81	43	8	.814	1.0	2.38
22	Ames W (3–1 sets)	4	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.50	8	1.78	32	4	.875	5.0	2.82
27	Tucson L (0–3 sets)	3	.	.	.	.	.	2	0.67	16	2.32	25	2	.920	0.0	4.05
Total		31	.	.	.	.	.	62	2.00	99	2.02	222	28	.874	14.0	5.26