Mon 23 Jan 2017 | 08:10
Nemani Nadolo goes full beast mode to demolish Northampton Saints

27
Comments

Fiji and Montpellier winger Nemani Nadolo put in one of the performances of the weekend as he blasted through the Northampton Saints defence to help his side to a 26-17 victory on Friday night. He scored twice, and caused havoc whenever he had ball in hand.

His first moment of brilliance came as he pulled in three defenders in a tight channel down the wing, then somehow offloaded for flanker Kellian Galletier to run in and score untouched.

He wasn't done there though. In the second half he channelled his inner Jonah Lomu to brush aside no less than 5 tacklers, including big winger George North. And that was after a bit of a fumble.

The 130kg former Crusaders winger then scored again late in the game, securing the victory.

"There was one outstanding performance from Nadolo," said Saints coach Jim Mallinder. "I thought he was absolutely on fire today so a lot of credit has to go to him and the way he played."

Humble as ever, Nadolo himself wasn't all that pleased with his showing on the night.

"I'm improving week in, week out and this was just another game to prove my worth. I'm playing with some of the best players in Europe and it probably wasn't one of my best games, but I took my opportunities when they came," he said.

"I'm not the fastest winger in the world, but I have size and I try to use that. It was good to break a few tackles and get over the try line."

View Nadolo's sensational performance, then full match highlights below that

credits: rugbyxv/ercrugby

27 Comments

  • danknapp
    11:16 AM 26/01/2017

    There is no god but the Couscous God, and PhillNZ is his prophet.

  • drg
    10:23 AM 25/01/2017

    But that rationale Stroudos, would it not be incorrect to refer to rugby fans as 'they'?

    We all accept rugby as the sport of choice... But we are not all agreeable about the finities, nor are we fans of the same teams, nor are we part of an organisation...Unless you count RD...

    ...But by our very nature we can be lumped into a group of "rugby fans" in the same way atheists can be placed into the "atheists" group... Effectively a group that doesn't believe in religion....Some might have different ideas about beginnings etc, but you're effectively one group of anti-religious people.... Whether that is a simple shrug of the shoulders and a "religion isnt for me" or a stand on a podium demanding the end to religion...

  • jimmy23
    4:43 PM 24/01/2017

    Oh my couscous, Oliver just reacted to one of my comments in a positive manner!

    I can die happy now.

    :P

    I also don't think I've mentioned couscous so many times in a thread before, only on Rugbydump eh!

  • oliver
    2:47 PM 24/01/2017

    I just love that "ALL HAIL THE COUSCOUS GOD!!!" is the top comment hahah........

    Wonder what people who stumble upon the site think??

  • reality
    1:15 PM 24/01/2017

    Is it not kind of inevitable that atheists will be grouped together? You used the term 'religious claptrap', implying that religion, in it's infinite forms and expressions, is all the same thing - claptrap.

    Grouping atheists in a group (of atheists) seems quite reasonable to me. After all, sharing the belief (or certainty, or whatever you want to call it) that God doesn't exist groups them together.

  • jimmy23
    11:30 AM 24/01/2017

    F**K OFF! Judaen People's Front....We're the People's Front of Judea!

    If you want to join, you have to really hate couscous.

  • stroudos
    11:07 AM 24/01/2017

    Hoot, no minefield at all. I think my point was very clear: it is inaccurate to conflate all atheists into one homogeneous group.

  • 10stonenumber10
    10:41 AM 24/01/2017

    Excuse me, but are you the Judean People's Front?

  • jimmy23
    10:19 AM 24/01/2017

    ALL HAIL THE COUSCOUS GOD!!!

  • guy
    10:12 AM 24/01/2017

    You've just got to love rugby afficionados: even discussions about faith, religion and the universe are held in a relatively polite manner.

    Although I am quite curious how NZPhill/PhillNZ feels about this matter...

  • hoot
    8:56 AM 24/01/2017

    Right, so it's ok to say 'they reject belonging to organised groups' but incorrect to say 'they believe x or y.' What a minefield!

  • oliver
    8:28 AM 24/01/2017

    I don't remember him sidestepping at all.......I remember him trampling over defenders! Just checked out a highlight video to make sure I remembered right: no swerving at all, just big fends (big!) and pace.

    Totally agree about the difference in era though. Players were 20 to 30 kilos lighter in the amateur days and Lomu could just run amok unopposed. It's crazy when you look back now how easy it seemed to be for him.

  • stroudos
    7:10 AM 24/01/2017

    Just realised I don't think I've used - or even heard - the word "claptrap" in ages. Might start reintroducing it, maybe in work discussions.

    One small point of order for you Hoot: you can't say "atheists think X", or "they held X theory". There is no "they"; belonging to an organised group is one of the key things that "they" reject.

    Anyway, back to the Rugby...

  • stroudos
    6:56 AM 24/01/2017

    World Rugby moves in mysterious ways... :)

  • 2:26 AM 24/01/2017

    No where near Jonahs pace, sidestepping or swerve. Don't get me wrong, nadolo is special, but no one matches Jonah. 10.7 my friends, 10.7. At 18

  • im1
    11:38 PM 23/01/2017

    At least this discussion is a nice break from the regular moaning (justified) about the directives/referring/citings of high tackles and taking the man out in the air. I wonder what the supreme beings of the various world religious would make of that. I would imagine they would be flummoxed as well.

  • hoot
    9:28 PM 23/01/2017

    Don't patronise pyes, I'm plenty educated on theology, Christian apologetics and theories of origins. Funnily enough the big bang theory itself acted as an immense challenge to atheists when it became widely accepted, since they had previously held that the universe had always existed, as opposed to the theory which postulates a beginning to all matter, energy, space and time. Hence also why many atheists are now trying to move away from the big bang to a multiverse theory or something equally untested and untestable - can the scientific method work outside of the universe?! Anyway, I'm not a keyboard warrior and this is a rugby site, so I won't say any more on the subject. Just saying that it's unnecessary to refer to deeply-held religious beliefs as claptrap.

  • pyes
    9:00 PM 23/01/2017

    Educate yourself Hoot - Atheists don't BELIEVE in anything, they create and test theories based on the available scientific evidence. The Big Bang is a cumulative theory based on hundreds of years of research in both classical and quantum physics and they have actually replicated the process on a much smaller scale; however, it is not the only theory, it is one among many which we are still trying to find more evidence for. So while scientists are finding and refining more and more evidence to test scientific ideas, we are also finding more and more evidence that dispels the stories of religion.
    It's great that Nemani has strong faith and I have no doubt it acts like a placebo effect and probably keeps his confidence high, but that's about where the benefits of religion end. From that point on, there's a lot of abstract and discriminatory ideas based on what people like or don't like and that's probably what stroudos is referring to by "claptrap".

  • hoot
    8:26 PM 23/01/2017

    'Religious claptrap' - i.e. religion? It might be best not to mock the Christian worldview when the atheistic one consists of believing that the universe popped into being uncaused out of nothing, and that way back in your family tree is a rock! Not trying to be controversial, but it's not ok to just casually call someone's faith religious claptrap and to assume everyone agrees with you.

  • drg
    7:25 PM 23/01/2017

    Exactly, the era is so different they may as well be different sports...

    But the similarities are clear to see..

  • stroudos
    1:50 PM 23/01/2017

    Indeed. Whereas Mr Dump is quite right to say Nadolo "channelled his inner Jonah Lomu to brush aside no less than 5 tacklers", especially given how reminiscent that try is of Lomu v England 1995; in most cases the comparisons are inaccurate and inadequate. Just because they're both massive and play on the wing, Nadolo is a far more complete rugby player - not to say Lomu couldn't have been, but he didn't need Nadolo's more rounded skill set in the era he played in.

  • stroudos
    1:46 PM 23/01/2017

    Very reluctant to agree with anything that supports religious claptrap, but yeah there's clearly some evidence to back up the theory of people who have that kind of faith excelling in sport. A very powerful way of gaining a psychological boost.

  • misterdavid
    12:11 PM 23/01/2017

    Itoje has the same humble-religious streak. So much harder to hate the humble guys!

  • 10stonenumber10
    11:48 AM 23/01/2017

    He is humble because he has strong faith. I'm not a religious man by any means, but everyone can appreciate the good it does people when used in the right way. It is the strongest theme in Pacific rugby, God gave them the talent, and as a way of showing thanks, they express God's blessings as best they can

  • oliver
    11:35 AM 23/01/2017

    Fully agree. And with all the Lomu comparisons, I think he might actually be better. More well-rounded for sure!

  • stroudos
    11:21 AM 23/01/2017

    The thing with Nadolo is that he's not just a behemoth, but a comprehensively skilled rugby player. I reckon if he weren't so massive, he would still be a phenomenal talent. Handling, vision, spatial awareness, soft passing, capable of wonderful tactical kicks (grubbers/chips), and a great place-kicker too. AND he's almost annoyingly modest with it all too.

  • vladimir
    10:53 AM 23/01/2017

    Where is McKenzie when you need him?