A penalty miss can change the mood of a match in seconds. For the player responsible, it can also raise an uncomfortable question: will he be trusted to take the next one?
Supporters often assume that missing puts a player’s position in the penalty-taking hierarchy at risk. If a different player subsequently steps up, it is tempting to interpret the change as a consequence of the miss.
But there is a problem with that assumption. A different penalty taker does not necessarily mean the previous one lost his place. He might simply have been unavailable when his club next received a penalty.
FIVDA reconstructed 484 Premier League penalty attempts across five seasons, from 2021/22 to 2025/26, to investigate what happened after both successful and unsuccessful penalties.
The findings suggest that missing does make a player’s position less secure. However, most players who missed still took their club’s next penalty when they were estimated to be on the pitch.
Why a different penalty taker does not always mean a demotion
The simplest way to investigate the question is to identify each penalty, find the club’s next attempt and check whether the same player took it.
On that basis, the results initially appear fairly harsh.
Of the 79 missed penalties followed by another club penalty, the same player took the next one on just 32 occasions — a retention rate of 40.5%.
After successful penalties, the same player retained responsibility on 214 of 378 occasions, equivalent to 56.6%.
Those figures suggest that a missed penalty is frequently followed by a change. But they do not establish whether the former taker was actually in a position to take the next one.
Consider the difference between two situations. In the first, a player misses, remains on the pitch when his club next receives a penalty and watches a team-mate take it. In the second, he misses but is not playing when that next opportunity arrives.
Only the first provides an observable choice between the previous taker and somebody else.
To separate those situations, FIVDA used Understat’s Premier League match and shot data to reconstruct penalty sequences, combining the incident records with used-player rosters and playing-time information.
The analysis estimates whether the former taker was on the pitch when the next penalty occurred. This is an important distinction, although the method cannot establish why a player was absent or what instructions were given.
Most players kept the role after missing
Once the analysis is restricted to cases where the previous taker was estimated to be on the pitch, the picture changes considerably.
After a missed penalty, the same player took the club’s next attempt in 32 of 52 cases — 61.5%.
Following a successful penalty, retention increased to 214 of 274 cases — 78.1%.
Figure 1 — Does a Penalty Taker Keep the Club’s Next Penalty?
Availability-adjusted retention was 61.5% after a miss and 78.1% after a goal. The lighter reference markers show the lower unadjusted rates of 40.5% and 56.6%. Based on Understat’s Premier League data for 2021/22–2025/26; FIVDA calculations.
The difference between the availability-adjusted rates is 16.6 percentage points.
That is the central finding. Players who missed were less likely to retain responsibility than players who scored, even when the previous taker was estimated to be available for the next attempt.
However, the majority still kept the role.
A miss was therefore associated with a greater likelihood of change, not an automatic loss of penalty-taking responsibility.
The distinction matters because the raw figures tell a substantially more pessimistic story. Without considering availability, fewer than half of missed penalties were followed by the same taker. Once observable opportunities are separated from absences, that figure rises above 60%.
More than half of apparent changes happened without the former taker
The difference becomes clearer when examining the 47 occasions on which a different player took the club’s next penalty after a miss.
In 20 cases, the former taker was estimated to be on the pitch. These are the situations most relevant to questions about penalty hierarchy, although even here the data cannot establish who made the decision.
In the remaining 27 cases, the former taker was not estimated to be on the pitch.
Eleven involved a player who had left the pitch before the next penalty. In another 16, the player was absent from Understat’s used-player roster.
That means more than half of the raw post-miss changes occurred without an observable choice between the old taker and his replacement.
Figure 2 — Why Apparent Taker Changes Are Not All Demotions
The chart separates retained penalties from changes occurring while the former taker was estimated to be on the pitch, had left the pitch or was absent from the used-player roster. Data reconstructed from Understat’s match records; FIVDA calculations.
There are several possible explanations for those absences. A player might have been injured, suspended, transferred or simply not selected. Substitution timing can also determine whether somebody remains available for a later penalty.
Importantly, absence from the used-player roster is not proof of any particular explanation.
The same problem affects the comparison after successful penalties. Of the 164 occasions when a different player took the next penalty following a goal, 104 involved a former taker who was not estimated to be on the pitch.
Availability therefore explains a substantial amount of turnover regardless of whether the previous penalty was scored or missed.
This matters for interpreting the role itself. Clubs cannot preserve an established penalty-taking order in every match if the players involved are not always available.
A change of name on the scoresheet is not necessarily a change of hierarchy.
Does changing the taker improve the next result?
There is another question behind the debate about penalty responsibility.
If a player misses, might changing the taker give the team a better chance of scoring next time?
The evidence does not establish that.
Across the reconstructed sequences, the next club penalty was converted 81.0% of the time following a miss, compared with 83.1% following a goal.
Those figures are remarkably close, particularly given the differences in the players, clubs and situations involved.
For readers interested in the wider distinction between scoring outcomes and chance quality, FIVDA’s introduction to expected goals explains why goals alone do not capture every aspect of an attacking opportunity.
They provide little basis for arguing that the previous result determined whether the club’s next penalty would be successful.
Nor do they demonstrate that replacing a player improves conversion. The next-attempt figures include different combinations of retained and changed takers, and the comparison does not isolate the effect of that decision.
Penalty-taking records can also reflect considerable continuity. The Premier League’s analysis of its best penalty records highlighted Raúl Jiménez reaching 14 successful penalties from 14 attempts in March 2026, illustrating how established takers can build substantial records over time.
But an individual’s long-term record and a club’s response to one missed attempt are different questions. A successful penalty history does not explain every subsequent selection decision.
The available evidence is better suited to measuring continuity than judging whether a particular change was correct.
What the results reveal about penalty-taking hierarchy
A penalty-taking hierarchy can appear straightforward when the same player repeatedly steps up. In reality, the next opportunity may arrive in a different match, with different players on the pitch and potentially different circumstances.
Clubs may share penalty duties or change responsibilities over time. Transfers and changes of manager can also alter the available options, while individual decisions during matches may not reflect any lasting reassignment.
The reconstructed data identifies who took the penalties and whether the previous taker appeared to be available. It does not reveal private instructions, player conversations or managerial intentions.
Even when a player misses and a team-mate subsequently takes the next penalty with both on the pitch, describing that sequence as a punishment would go beyond the evidence.
What FIVDA can establish is narrower but more useful: a missed penalty was associated with a lower chance of retaining the next opportunity, even after accounting for estimated on-pitch availability.
That pattern was measured across five completed Premier League seasons, not every period in the competition’s history. Repeated observations involving the same clubs and players also mean the sequences should not be treated as entirely independent decisions.
The findings are descriptive rather than proof that missing directly caused a change in responsibility.
A miss loosens the grip, but rarely ends it immediately
The obvious question after a missed penalty is whether the player has lost his place in the hierarchy. The evidence suggests a more measured answer.
Missing was associated with a meaningful reduction in the likelihood of taking the club’s next penalty. Yet 61.5% of previous takers retained responsibility when they were estimated to be on the pitch, and many apparent changes in the raw data were explained by availability rather than an observable selection choice.
That distinction changes how penalty-taking decisions should be understood.
A missed penalty can leave the role less secure, but the next name on the scoresheet cannot reveal the whole story. Before interpreting a change as lost trust, the first question should be whether the original taker was actually there to take it.
Main image is by Kelvin Stuttard from Pixabay
