Question.

If the whole problem is playing numbers. Why hasnt the English soccer team got to more than one major final in its entire history, and why hasnt it got to more than a couple semi-finals in its entire history?

Think you'd need to go to some soccer forum to ask them.
I suspect you'd issues such as number of non-English players at the top level (which is a far greater problem for that sport than it is in RL) club power, junior focus on winning rather than coaching, winter seasons and available training facilities not conducive to skills training.
I don't know enough about their elite player pathways to comment on that aspect. I give anecdotal evidence (Villa, Cov and Birmingham U18s teams used to run trial matches next to where we coached the RL RPDC this year) that even at U18 level, the pro club squads are dominated by foreign players.
Anyway, besides the point, it's a sport I'm not interested in.

Bingo. And just think how many kids a junior development officer costing <£30K a year can get around to. Thousands. Then on top of that, part of their role is typically coaching coaches and helping amateur clubs, something else people seem to be crying out for.

See Richie's point below.

Also, according to Sport England figures in July 2009 approximately 3m adults in the England participated in football (indoor or outdoor) once a month. Not sure, but I'd be surprised if that's a higher figure than say Brazil or even some other European countries

England has more prof players to pick from than NZ, alot more. Quantity is not the issue, its quality that's the problem.

How do junior numbers compare?

That's because England has significantly more professional clubs than New Zealand, which has a grand total of one.

How do the numbers of people participating in rugby league stack up?

The Clubs would be the ones expected to pay for it.

We are probably extracting all we can from those already playing RL in the heartlands. Yes we could likely train them better but common sense tells us that we will pick up a huge percentage of those with the inherent talent to play RL, who are already playing RL in the heartlands. It also tells us, as does the evidence, that we arent picking up a large percentage of those with the inherent talent to play RL who arent playing RL and arent in the heartland.


The clubs,

certainly.

one third of junior players affiliated to the NRL are Kiwis. One third of the players to go through the best youth development system in the rugby world are kiwis.

That isnt the case at all, most people who go on to be professional sports people are playing multiple sports and have been identified as having the potential to be elite athletes.

Besides i think you are going a bit further than I would propose. Im not talking about finding the fastest 16 year old 100 metre runner in the country and seeing if he wants to play RL, im talking closer to county level, and even then it doesnt need to be the best, simply someone able to perform at a high level. the 20th fastest hundred metre sprinter in Britain would easily be the fastest 100 metre sprinter in RL.

Is this a SL rule or an RFL rule that says clubs can spend money on scouting badminton tournaments, but not spend it on community coaching?

I'm not sure your "evidence" that "we aren't picking up a large percentage of those with the inherent talent to play RL who aren't playing RL and arent in the heartland" and are willing and able to play RL really stacks up here.

So we take UK athletics sprinters #20 to #80, who likely can't change direction, catch a ball, carry a ball, throw a ball, take a hit or make a hit. We invest our limited coaching resources in them (at the expense of other players of course, because we don't have unlimited coaching resources) and that's going to push us ahead in rugby league?