Splitting

[Eagle33]

Sorry this is a long one...the splitting dilema is a tough one....I agree it depends on the coaching philosophy, the kid, team, and parents (of both kids). I have seen some very difficult/toxic situations if everyone is not on-board/same page - parent issues, issues among players, and drama, i.e. who plays in OT, Penalties, etc. I also know kids who are upset they are splitting 50%/50% because they are better and should be playing more.

There was a football coach who said this about quarterbacks, "if you have two, then you really don't have one." I think it applies to keepers. Finding the right fit is very key or there are going to be issues. I think playing time at the keeper position should be the same as all others. If one is better they should play more, not just both get half a game. The better player should get more playing time like any other position. It is earned in practice/training and by in-game performance.

I am personally against splitting halves. In my opinion, they should rotate starts and play full games for a variety of reasons - consistency during the game, keeping mentally focused for a full 90, you can't simulate stress and the end of close/tight game, time to recover from a mistake (rebuilding confidence), etc., among many others.

Plus, in college, pro, etc. very rarely do you see in game keeper changes (mostly in friendlies, not in Tournaments or Qualifying Competitions). In college, pro, etc. there most always is a clear starter. You will see where the second keeper with starts against weaker opponents, where the starter will get starts against the stronger competition and knock-out games. If they are equal (I think this is a rare scenario), alternate starts; or determine starts based on strengths, etc. That said if one keeper is better they should get more starts, and play more full games-like any other player. Just alternating halves because there are two, or to be fair makes no sense to me.

Lastly, I believe the coach needs to set the expectation with the children and parents, at the start. Let the kids compete, but set the expectation that there will be a starter and a back-up, and the better player will play more. Most often I hear coaches tell parents they are equal to avoid somebody leaving the team, or to avoid a conflict/confrontation. Believe me, the field players on the team (and parents) can tell you who the starter is/should be, it is not a mystery. The coach will usually tip their hand in knock-out games, or games with OT/PK potential to play the better keeper in the second half, and this keeper will play the OT and PK's if applicable.

I would really like to hear how this conversation will end...
Coach: Hey, parent, your kid will not be a starter on my team, but I would really like him to join and sit on the bench just in case my superstar keeper gets injured.

 

[Woobie06]

How is this different from any conversation with a field player/parent that the player is not going to start but will get on average a number of x minutes, but can improve to earn more minutes? These conversations happen often. Some kids get 20 minutes a game in a 90 minute game, some less. Are players/parents that sensitive that they can't receive honest feedback from a coach on where their player is? Not every player is a starter, some players have roles, and some occasionally start. I'm not saying not to play the second keeper, far from it. I am saying the player performing better should play more because they have earned it through performance regardless if the player is a keeper or field player.

 

[MyDaughtersAKeeper]

Most honest thing I ever heard from a coach was something along the lines of "...there is no starter and there is no backup. I won't be splitting time 50/50. They will earn it, or lose it, during practice each week, and I will play whomever I think has earned it or gives us a better match up." My kid had no problem with that.