Is the aim of the sport to achieve the highest standard, or perhaps there should be an element of endurance that is recognized as part of what a winning team needs. Though with the way things are now that just favoured the richest clubs that can build two complete first teams.
I'm obviously posing that question over a season, but you could equally ask it over a game. I think it's quite interesting to think about how it would change things if you were allowed as many changes as you like from your whole squad and you could put players back on after yanking them.
One could say it's already been decided that you pick your 11 with the the expectation that the majority of the players that start the game will finish it, sure you have a number of subs and then you can swap them in as players tire, get injured or simply play badly, but as a rule these all represent adjustments to a side, not a new side. Hence it's important that most players can play 90 minutes regularly, and I suppose there has to be a recognition that the game will be slower at the end - particularly if it goes to extra time or is in extreme heat or at high altitude.
But the number of subs allowed keeps getting bigger. I think first you were allowed one person available only in case of injury, then two. Then maybe subs were allowed tactically - some teams would have a goalie on the bench cos they reasoned that if gk got injured you were fucked. Then I guess they changed it so you were allowed a sub keeper and two outfield players. With the number on the bench, and the number of changes allowed only moving upwards it feels to me as though there is a general drift towards what I think of as "US sports style system" regarding changes (this is my understanding/memory of how the rules changed - but of course it varies by country, tournament, level etc etc so it's a sort of attempted summary or amalgamation or something).
I do like the tactical elements added by increasing the number of back-ups, though I'd never want to get to the stage like in American Football where they KO and then change the whole team after ten seconds.
Cos I think - correct me if I'm wrong - that in a lot of US sports you can take players off and put them back on, and I think in, say, ice hockey don't they often swap the entire line at a time? Presumably that means you can continuously bring on rested players who can attack the game as though it's the first minute. I assume that means that the game doesn't slow as much as ones where the same player has to last the whole game.
It's kinda interesting to imagine what football would be like if you could take players off and then put them back on. It would remove that dilemma where a team protecting a slender lead has to decide whether or not to pull the star forward and bring on an extra defender... and risk being fucked if they do concede.
I doubt changing a whole defence or midfield would produce a net gain though as the extra energy would be offset by a loss of organisation and settling into the game.
Anyway just kinda thinking allowed I guess. Partly cos if you play 5-a-Side friendly games like I do it's completely assumed you can take players on and off and on etc
