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?
The physical demands of the sport are bound to be a factor. It’s pure speculation, but I wonder (in addition to the colonialism) there’s a tribal/warrior element to the sport which might play into it’s popularity within Fiji/Samoa/Tonga/New Zealand etc. Rugby is an absolute battle.
Looking at world rankings for cricket and rugby too, there’s a definite race contrast. The vast majority of the top 10 rugby nations are predominantly white, whereas it’s the opposite for cricket. That’s likely explained by political geography. The British would have established the popularity of cricket in the region prior to the formation of modern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.
Globally I would say that cricket is actually far less popular than rugby, by number of participating nations. The fact that cricket is more popular in some of the regions you’ve mentioned is because those regions within the Indian subcontinent came into being more recently than the sport was popularised, i.e. cricket was popular in one region, but that region became several independent nations over time.