Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Town's top performers deserve more

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 November 2009
How the Hatters rated


Kevin Pilkington: 8.5 – So unlucky with the first goal and great penalty stop, deserved more than to be thwarted by a cruel late winner.

Ed Asafu-Adjaye: 7 – Solid and dependable, the reliable right-back put in a decent shift defensively.

Keith Keane: 8.5 – Won plenty of ball in the middle of the park and formed a terrier-like partnership with Nicholls.

George Pilkington: 8 – Had little chance to stop the goals and looked right at home back at centre-half.

Adam Newton: 7.5 – Lacked a left foot to truly excel on the left wing, but is industrious and will always help to make things happen.

Kevin Nicholls: 8 – Didn't deserve to give away late penalty. Looks far more lively in the centre alongside Keane and delivered some great set-pieces.

Tom Craddock: 8.5 – Non-stop running caused Cambridge a defensive headache and fully deserved his cracking goal from thirty yards.

Shane Blackett: 8 – Filled Alan White's shoes fantastically and his athleticism helped him to dominate in the air and on the deck.

Claude Gnakpa: 7.5 – Took his goal well but too often he strayed from his role on the right wing.

Kevin Gallen: 8 – His experience and strength helped him to hold the ball up and bring others into play throughout.

Freddie Murray: 6 – Endured a torrid time at the back. For 80 minutes he was excellent, but was caught short for the first goal, gave away the first penalty and then headed against his own post in the lead-up to the equaliser.

Jake Howells (sub): 5 – Barely involved in the closing minutes and couldn't stop the U's grabbing an equaliser.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 November 2009 6:38 PM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Luton
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.