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?
You must log in or register to comment.
Heat. It’s intolerable. Add the modern Rugby suit, and you’re gonna have a stroke. Also, the soil is not compatible.
From Wikipedia:
From then on, rugby in India, lingered on at a very low key. Part of the reason for this was that the British preferred to play apart from their colonial subjects, leading to a low take up by the local population. Another reason was the climate, which meant that games would frequently have to be played in the evenings or early morning, which meant that it was not too popular with the colonists themselves.
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.
Yes. Short burst sports are popular in India. Like for example, badminton, tennis, kabaddi and cricket.
Soccer and hockey can be considered as an oddball, but excluding those, there’s no other high-intensity sports popular in India.
I don’t buy the heat thing.
A) India has all sorts of temperatures, B) they play kabaddi
a) Kabaddi is played in skimpy, light costumes, similar to an Indian-styled martial art dress, barefoot. The modern cloth is similar to what football and basketball players wear, but lighter, smaller and tighter. Wrestling shoes are worn, which is lighter than football or basketball shoes - going barefoot is also okay in the modern rulebook.
b) The game is nothing like rugby, which is a long-distance, highly intense sport - you play in short bursts, similar to cricket. You should be comparing rubgy to hockey or soccer, both of which are decently popular in India.
c) It is relatively inexpensive. You need a balanced team of four to eight people on each side, a marker (chalk for concrete, stick for mud), and that’s it.
d) Cricket stole the limelight of every sports in India, which sucks. Hockey, soccer, kabaddi, tennis and badminton, all have their own icons. Rubgy has nothing that’s flashy.
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.
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.
Yeah, no question
This is a good question tbh
deleted by creator
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.
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.
But cricket isn’t? I can’t imagine a game that can sometimes take days to complete with afternoon tea breaks is something that would appeal to working class Indians.
But it does though…
Kabaddi is a thing in India. It’s not the same but similar-ish enough.
Are you kidding, they are killing each other over Kabaddi in the UK.
No wait, just fighting
The kabaddi player who was murdered was probably to do with gang violence
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 .
deleted by creator
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.
This is an asshat take 🤣🤣. It’s laughable. Nice bait though.
Rugby isn’t popular in England? Are you mad?
It’s the third most popular sport, after cricket. Which most people that I’ve met in the UK have no interest in.
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.
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”.
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.
Mate, football and cricket are mandatory in those same schools, you absolute ring binder.
Oof not even a lever arch file.
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.
It is a shite game but your comment is still shite.
Go back to Reddit
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.
