Frees from the Ground or the Hand; (’12 – ’15)

An article by Martin Breheny during the week had a pop at Mickey Newman for not taking a 35m free from the ground (it’s the O’Byrne cup. In January!).

Kevin Egan (@lonesharkoy on twitter and a great read in his betting columns for betswot) bemoaned the fact that the article was based on a sample size of one. One! And that maybe, just maybe, Newman might know what’s best for him when taking a free.

This is old ground. Conversion rates for frees from the hand and the ground were covered in two early pieces (see here and here). Just like now the catalyst for the original piece was commentators bemoaning the lack of a particular skill. The Breheny article, and discussion on Twitter in its aftermath, got me curious as to whether the results of the initial study had changed at all now that we had so much more data.

The short answer is it hasn’t. Overall players convert frees from the hand at a 20% rate better than from the ground.

 

	Attempts	Scores	Success Rate
From the Hand	789	623	79%
From the Ground	405	239	59%

 

That 20% gap is a bit sensationalist. Where frees are taken from does have an impact on overall conversion rates. The majority of frees (78%) taken from outside the 45 are taken from the ground. Frees from outside the 45 are converted at a relatively paltry 38% so including these will automatically dampen the results for frees from the ground. If we exclude theme does it change anything?

 

	Attempts	Scores	Success Rate
From the Hand	753	608	81%
From the Ground	281	193	69%

 

The answer is yes and no. Yes the difference between the two is narrowed significantly but the central tenet holds true – players are better at converting from the hand than they are from the ground. Indeed the gap has grown slightly from three years ago when similar splits saw results of 79% from the hand and 68% from the ground.

Shot attempts are further segmented by sector (see sector breakdown here) so we are able to take a more granular look.

 

Sector	From Ground	From Hand
4	58%	63%
5	81%	84%
6	51%	70%
7	72%	79%
8	96%	98%
9	78%	80%

 

Frees from the hand not only outperform those from the ground but do so in all sectors. Including, perhaps a touch surprisingly, the very central ones. I say surprisingly because with frees out wide I can understand how players taking them from the hands make it easier on themselves by stealing a few yards. That doesn’t really enter the equation with the more central ones.

As stated in 2013 I have no problem with people lamenting the loss of a skill but surely Mickey Newman, or any free taker, knows the best way to approach any particular free? The fact that the numbers back up using your hands is just a nice happenstance.

What’s the betting we will be revisiting this in 2017?

Frees; From the Ground or the Hand – Updated

Back at the start of Summer I wrote a piece (here for background detail) about an interesting trend I had spotted; namely that frees from the hand, contrary to popular opinion, were outperforming frees from the ground.

In the back of my mind I did wonder if the mix of games I had charted had somehow skewed the results. I had charted one full season and the early parts of another season. Had this led to more ‘lower grade’ games thus perhaps capturing more below average free takers?

As such I revisited the numbers after two full seasons (I think we’re over 60 games now) and … the gap has increased!

The table below shows that 61% of frees from the ground are converted whilst 77% of frees from the hand are converted. The initial post had shown a 63%-75% split.

	Shots	Scores	Success Rate
Ground	304	185	61%
Hand	439	336	77%

Before proceeding just another quick reminder of how the pitch is segmented

In the earlier study there was a discrepancy between shots inside and outside the 20m line with frees from the ground inside the 20m line outperforming frees from the hand. The reverse was true outside the 20m line. This is no longer the case.

One interesting point to note is that, despite the wider trends, frees from the ground right in front of the posts (sectors 5 & 8) outperformed frees from the hand. The easier the frees the better you are in placing the ball on the ground. The wider out the pitch you go the better you are taking the free from the hand.

Emmet Ryan over at the action81 website posited that perhaps the ability of free takers to steal a few yards, whilst taking frees from the hand outside the 20m line, might explain why the returns are better for this method out on the wings. This is by far the most plausible reason as to why this could occur. It could also be that players taking frees from the ground are straining for distance/accuracy and that this is upsetting a well honed regimen. It is going to be very hard to (dis)prove either however.

For now we’ll just have to contend ourselves with the knowledge that, irrespective of the reason, your free taker is better taking his shots from the hand.

Segment	From	Shots	Scores	Success Rate
4	Hand	68	46	68%
	Ground	53	25	47%
5	Hand	100	82	82%
	Ground	55	49	89%
6	Hand	73	47	64%
	Ground	62	30	48%
20m to 45m	Hand	241	175	73%
	Ground	170	104	61%

 

Segment	From	Shots	Scores	Success Rate
7	Hand	46	34	74%
	Ground	12	10	83%
8	Hand	90	83	92%
	Ground	23	23	100%
9	Hand	28	27	96%
	Ground	24	18	75%
inside 20m	Hand	164	144	88%
	Ground	59	51	86%

Frees; From the Ground or the Hand

I have heard both Martin Carney & Martin McHugh lament the fact that the art of taking a free kick from the ground is passing. That teams are harming their own prospects by not cultivating a kicker who can take a free from the ground. Their argument, and one that I would suggest is generally accepted, is that taking frees from the ground is more constant. There are less moving parts thus the motion should be more repetitive. More repetitive leads to more reliability which leads to a better success rate (for some reason I have rugby kickers in my head as I write that).

Is this the case??

In entries to date I have noted the results of “deadballs”. This includes all shots from Sidelines, 45s, penalties and free kicks. Sidelines (from the hand) and 45s (from the ground) are the extreme of both cases; they have been omitted as they would probably skew the results. Similarly I have omitted penalties as I’ve yet to chart a missed penalty. Therefore we’ll look at all frees where a shot was attempted and monitor the success rates of those taken from the ground versus those taken from the hand.

	Shots	Scores	Success Rate
Ground	255	160	63%
Hand	282	211	75%

Hmmm. Frees from the hand are more successful than frees from the ground. That’s not a small sample size either; it’s unlikely to be overly affected by one very good (or very bad) free taker. The immediate counter argument I would expect is that frees from the ground are taken from harder positions on the pitch thus there is a bias inherent in looking at the whole population. Luckily we segment the pitch so below are the results for frees inside the 21m line and frees between the 21m & the 45m line.

Segment	From	Shots	Scores	Success Rate
4	Hand	46	33	72%
	Ground	43	20	47%
5	Hand	59	47	80%
	Ground	52	46	88%
6	Hand	46	27	59%
	Ground	50	26	52%
21m to 45m	Hand	151	107	71%
	Ground	145	92	63%
Segment	From	Shots	Scores	Success Rate
7	Hand	33	23	70%
	Ground	9	8	89%
8	Hand	54	49	91%
	Ground	22	22	100%
9	Hand	21	21	100%
	Ground	17	14	82%
inside 21m	Hand	108	93	86%
	Ground	48	44	92%

Frees from the ground show a slightly better return inside the 21m line but overall the success rate for frees from the hand inside the 45m line is better than those taken from the ground (77% Vs 70%)

I have no problem with people pining for the loss of a particular skillset within the game (the midfield ‘fetch’ is one dying out with the advent of the shorter kick out routines) but call it what it is. Nostalgia. Don’t wrap it up in erroneous beliefs. There is no evident benefit to taking frees from the ground.