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?
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.