Asklemmy

43898 readers

976 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!

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
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

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

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Why didn't Rugby take off in the Indian subcontinent? (feddit.uk)

submitted 7 months ago by Oneeightnine@feddit.uk to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

22 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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] doublejay1999@lemmy.world 1 points 7 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 .