It's pretty clear that for a transmitting antenna, you only have so much power, and so the more you send in one direction, the less you send in another.
But what about a receiving antenna. Shouldn't there be a way to make it "bigger" and so intercept more energy? Intuitively there should be, but the engineering always says "no". And it's interesting to take a moment to understand why.
Research quickly lead to https://ham.stackexchange.com/questions/1836/how-to-increase-antenna-aperture which is an interesting read.
My explanation of the issue would be as follows:
The concept at play is the antenna's
aperture, or basically the effective perpendicular cross section of signal in intercepts. Can't we make that bigger?
We can't really make the dipole bigger without changing its resonant frequency, and if operate it in an overtone mode (not uncommon, eg, using a 7 MHz antenna as 21 MHz) it's already going to have different behavior.
But what if we get a big field and build a bunch of dipoles and add their energy together? We should get the sum of the energy all receive, right?
Well, sorta, but there's a problem: if we add signals from distinct points in space where they have different path lengths to the transmitter and thus different phases, in some combinations they will add constructively, and in others they will interfere destructively. So to make that work, we'd have to adjust the phase delay of the feed from each antenna so that they add constructively. Which means we've just re-invented the phased array antenna. And since a given set of delay adjustments only work for a signal coming from one direction, phased array antennas are directional... it's pretty much why they get built.
TL;DR no, you can only do this by making the antenna system directional. You then have the choice of mechanical rotation or electronic rotation.
And anyway, in weak signal work, directionality is considered a good thing, because (provided you can readily aim it) it lets you get more of the signal you want, and less of the extraneous energy you don't.
Let's also not forget that directionality is a question in three dimensions. A typical antenna for ground-wave modes intended to be geographically omnidirectional would still typically want to be spatially directional in the sense that it is optimized horizontally towards the horizon, rather than up into the sky. Unless spacecraft communication or skywave propagation is the goal, "up" is more a direction of waste or one from which undesired noise arrives - even aircraft are less "up" than "over" by the time range becomes a challenge.