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?

    • Quicky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 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
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 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.

    • SbisasCostlyTurnover@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 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.