Sky have calculated the distance each player from the top 4 leagues has travelled from their place of birth to join their current clubs.

Surprise surprise, Manchester City are the least local team in England. Most Local? AFC Wimbledon. Where do Derby stand I hear you ask....19th, didnt think that was too bad.

Now thinking about this, you would expect that the bottom section of the table would be all Premiership teams wouldnt you what with the lack of English talent and the desire to sign better players from the continent or even further afield. Surprisingly Boro are 88th out of the 92 clubs 

Forest are 44th btw.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11096/10172272/premier-league-manchester-city-are-the-least-local-club-in-england

I wonder whether this includes the January transfers? Camara and Olsson would up our figures a fair bit if not.

It is a totally pointless survey. 

All we would need to do to go from 19th to near the bottom would be to sign an Australian. A team could have 21 players that are born within a mile of the ground and then Tim Cahill and they would be in the middle of the pack. 

3 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

All we would need to do to go from 19th to near the bottom would be to sign an Australian. 

And look how that turned out for us last time

Australia was far enough, but what really did us was signing the alien, Earnshaw...

I wonder how long it and how many people it took to do this. And how much they got paid. 

 

Boro have plenty of local lads in their squad. The thing that tips the club to 88th is massively down to 3 players that come from Uruguay...

and an Aussie iirc

And a Greek, a few spaniards, a Belgian, a Czech, an Italian and a Gambian (out on loan)

It can't include Camara, he was born in Guinea apparently, some 4000 odd miles away. If included he'd about double our total on his own.

21 hours ago, DerbyPride said:

I wonder whether this includes the January transfers? Camara and Olsson would up our figures a fair bit if not.

neither if those had played 90minutes or more when the table was made, so not included.

its a skewed table anyway. A team could play 20 players with an average distance of 150miles. Then add in one player born 4000 miles away the average more than doubles to 333miles. Are they really that much less local because of 1 player.

5 minutes ago, davenportram said:

its a skewed table anyway. A team could play 20 players with an average distance of 150miles. Then add in one player born 4000 miles away the average more than doubles to 333miles. Are they really that much less local because of 1 player.

Or 21 players born in Derby, one player born in Sydney who moved to Derby at the age of 2 and lived there ever since and you'd be down to 40th on the table. I doubt Man City fans are kicking off because they're the 'least local'.