59
Why didn't Rugby take off in the Indian subcontinent? (feddit.uk)
submitted 5 months ago by Oneeightnine@feddit.uk to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] velox_vulnus@lemmy.ml 45 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] Oneeightnine@feddit.uk 17 points 5 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.

[-] velox_vulnus@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[-] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago

I don't buy the heat thing.

A) India has all sorts of temperatures, B) they play kabaddi

[-] velox_vulnus@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] Quicky@lemmy.world 3 points 5 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 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 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.

[-] Quicky@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah, no question

[-] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 months ago

This is a good question tbh

[-] baatliwala@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Kabaddi is a thing in India. It's not the same but similar-ish enough.

[-] Sizzler@slrpnk.net 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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

[-] doublejay1999@lemmy.world 1 points 5 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 .

this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
59 points (90.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43394 readers
1333 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod@lemmy.pt
14specks@lemmy.ml