- Messages
- 1,742
At the end of the day we don't have the resources, be they financial or physical, to beat Australia on a consistent basis.
Yes, England most certainly does have the resources to beat Australia, especially since NZ has done so in 3 major tournaments recently with a smaller pool of human and financial resources than both Australia and England.
Number of registered players in
England = 60,000+. Some statements claim total participation is 285,000.
New Zealand = 16,728 in 2009 (from the SPARC review).
Number of eligible players in SL/NRL top squads
England = more than twice that of NZ.
Number of professional teams
England = 12 FT (SL), 19 semi-pro (Championship & C1)
NZ = 1 FT (NZ Warriors), 1 semi-pro (Auckland Vulcans in NSW Cup)
Government funding shows a massive disparity in favour of England over NZ.
Sport England funding to RFL = 29.4 million sterling from 2009 to 2013
SPARC NZ funding to NZRL = NZ $3 million from 2011 to 2013.
Quantity and quality of player resources is not the issue - England/GB have both defeated NZ in a number of series in the last decade. New Zealand's defeat Australia in an RLWC, 3N and 4N is testament to that. Preparation and management are factors that England could address.