England really is a curiosity in this case. They'll often deflect with the excuse that the sports they've invented are so popular worldwide, that they can't be expected to win that much, but that's bullshit.
Rugby is a fine sport, but it's niche, played seriously by about 8 relatively small countries. How is England not the dominant entity in that group? Even the much smaller Scotland and Wales are better at the game.
Cricket? Australia and perhaps South Africa/New Zealand are the only "athletic" countries that play it seriously. How is England not more competitive?
We've seen this throughout history.
Tennis, popularized by England, was dominated by English players at the turn of the century. Then Australia, New Zealand, and eventually the US started to play and pretty much shut England out of major event wins. England has not won a men's major in the open era.
Golf. Invented in Scotland, but became a global game on the back of Harry Vardon. Yes, he had no love for the English (being from Jersey) but the English used him to demonstrate their superiority. Then an American kid beat him, US golf was born, and England has struggled to win majors ever since.
England was also a very poor Olympic performer from the 1930s-00s, until they found their cycling niche, which I really can't consider a sport.
Is it their obsession with soccer that takes away their best athletes? The rainy climate?
England really is a curious sporting case.
