When Does Keeping A Core of Local Players Make Any Difference?

Over the years, there have been many pro and anti discussions on how a soccer team should keep its core localised, to:

1) Maintain a local spirit to the team
2) Encourage growth and continuity of the national game despite introduction of players from other countries

Many have used the decline of the English national team as proof that keeping such a core is essential to the national team's standard of play. The EPL is now flooded with 'foreigners', and despite the success enjoyed by the English teams, the English national team time and again disappoints, and show no signs of improved standards of play. Most have attributed this to the EPL top teams (where most English internationals play) being filled with foreigners and the English players on the periphery. Arsenal and Liverpool come to mind.

Others have argued that this was not the case. They claim that this was in line with the falling standards of English players themselves - many are getting lazy and lack the basic fundamentals of soccer skills to survive at the top level. Another group have noted that English players are pound for pound, over-priced compared to their more talented peers from foreign lands. Why use expensive and less skilful English players when you can get cheaper but more quality Europeans?

Derek Rae at Soccernet came up with a short piece on how Scotland's Rangers have been grinding out results on 'Anti-football' (negative and defensive football for all those that have no clue), and key to that were the return to the club of top Scottish manager Walter Smith and his use of 7 Scottish players as his backbone of the team. Something which Rangers lacked in the past few seasons (when they went cosmopolitan) and resultant results on the domestic and European stage nosedived. Walter Smith attributed the renaissance of his team to reverting to a local imprint, and implied that the side's play resulted in more pride and passion.

Honestly, I don't have a final piece on this whole issue. However, my personal take is that as long as you can find players who truly want to play for the club, are passionate, and appreciative of the chance given to them, it isn't necessary to go for local lads. Ferguson has shown this time and again with Manchester United when his fledglings started to disband. Arsenal has also disproved it on more than one occasion - remember his unbeaten team a few seasons ago? How many Englishmen were there?

The only downside is that of a decreasing standard of play for the national team. Again, you could pick players from the lesser clubs - surely some of them deserve a chance - and Scotland has proven that you do not need bountiful talent to get results. Tactics can play a big part. Less recognised players may also put in more effort for the cause. And of course, choosing a good manager. McClaren? Give me a break.