IMHO England have a very good competition in the Super League, and they have been more than competitive in WCC matches. In the past (90's, certainly) I'd have said the Australian competition is so much better that it gives the Australian side a real advantage, but I don't think that is really the case any more.
England's problem is the same as NSW's (and we don't talk about the poor structure in NSW competitions- though some bring up the red herrings of "passion" or "stability" for QLDs dominance over NSW): Slater, Thurston, Lockyer, Smith (+ Cronk and Inglis are handy), who are comfortably the most lethal spine I've ever seen.
I think before we get too carried away boasting about the Australian "system" we should think about the Australian cricket team, which was also supposedly the best through a superior system, but now seems to have been the best because they actually had arguably the best all rounder (Gilchrist) and spinner (Warne) of all time, and two of the best of the modern era in Ponting and McGrath. With three of those players retired and the other looking old and out of form, the Australian team are a shambles, but our state competition doesn't seem particularly worse.
Lockyer is gone, and it is not certain that Cronk and Thurston will form the same threat as a partnership (sure they'll be good, but will they be that good?). England were as good as Australia in many areas throughout the tournament, but lacked the super classy touches under pressure that the Australian spine had. If England find another star in the halves, hopefully with a great kicking game (Widdop might get there in a few years), Roby and Tomkins look the goods at international level. I think England can keep competing for a long time.