Asklemmy
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
This is a good question tbh
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 .