There’s a good crossover between the best Rugby nations and the best Cricketing nations; I’m assuming this is down to good old fashioned British colonialism?

Which leads me to wonder why Rugby never gained the same level of support in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka as it did in New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and Fiji.

Or am I totally wrong and the two things aren’t remotely related?

    • SbisasCostlyTurnoverOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      8 months ago

      Might also explain why Cricket is so popular. Obviously it still requires a fair amount of physical exertion but it’s definitely a bit more laid back than something like Rugby.

    • Quicky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is likely the best explanation, although there’s plenty of highly physical/athletic sports that are popular in hot countries. Football, arguably the most athletically demanding team sport, is popular in a bunch of places where I’d rather stay in the shade with a beer.

      • folkrav@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I’d say football has that unique advantage that it can be played basically anywhere with anything somewhat ball shaped and bouncy. One of the most accessible sports out there. Barely any equipment required to be able to play it.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    No idea about in India, but it’s probably the same reason rugby wasn’t popular in England for a long time.

    It was a game played by the rich. And not really watched by anyone else.

    When most people worked manual labor, and there was no health insurance or safety net, even just “normal” injuries like a sore back for a couple days stopped you from working, so you didn’t get paid.

    Soccer was what the lower classes paid, and why flopping became a thing. Even a minor injury had effects on someone’s life.

    So when India was a colony, very few could play. But cricket (I think) doesn’t have many injuries.

  • doublejay1999@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Great question. My first guess would be the ground is mostly too dry and hard. It probably played a part, but doesnt explain South Africa .

  • 01011@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Because it’s a stupid game. Rugby “took off” in places with a significant settler/invader population, which India lacked (relative to the size of the Indian population). Plus, India has its own sports that are far more interesting and then there’s cricket which is a superior game of skill and tact.

    Rugby isn’t even popular in the country that birthed the game.

    • mannycalavera
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is an asshat take 🤣🤣. It’s laughable. Nice bait though.

      • 01011@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        It’s the third most popular sport, after cricket which most people that I’ve met in the UK have no interest in.

        • Quicky@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          And 2 million people in England are registered players. That’s 3.5% of the population. That’s just official registered players, not even fans. Your comment is absurd.

          • 01011@monero.town
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            That’s because they make it mandatory at certain schools in the UK, not because it’s genuinely beloved by the populace. Nobody would ever call Rugby “the people’s game”.

            • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              Nobody did call rugby the people’s game though.

              I don’t give a crap about rugby either, but to suggest that it isn’t popular in the UK is stretching the truth far past breaking point.

            • Quicky@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              Mate, football and cricket are mandatory in those same schools, you absolute ring binder.

        • MrsDoyle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I wish it wasn’t popular in the UK. I hail from NZ originally and everyone assumes I love rugby as much as they do. Any time there’s a big tournament on people keep trying to talk to me about bloody rugby. I hate it, HATE it. An English friend who’s a fanatic dragged me along to an All Black/Scotland test match - booooring. I don’t know anyone who isn’t at least interested in rugby, chats about the latest big game etc etc. Bloody rugby.

          Sorry to rant, but I’ve just put my car key fob through a washing machine cycle, so I’m not in a good mood.

      • pop@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        The indian brigade on reddit is wild. If their lies aren’t picked up by others, anything that props up India is flooded to the top and any criticism is considered racism.

        One of the benefits of overpopulation on the internet.