Soccer Substitutions

Football only introduced three substitutions in the 70s, before then there were NO subsitutions. If you were injured, so be it. The team you started with, you finished with, finito. In friendlies, there used to be unlimited substitutions, but because they all have to be done officially, every time the ball goes out of play, it'll take a minute to restart the game with the numbers of substitutions. Also, as I have stated, we don't necessarily want the best team to win. We root for the underdog, and only want to see a good game, irrespective of who wins (unless you support them). Again, the extra time concept has been around for 100+ years, and it's a tradition they want to keep. Having a limit is more strategic, because you cannot keep switching players/formations about. As for the "time wasting", there are two reasons for that - 1. The player(s) are waiting for their team mates to make runs to areas that they are not going to lose possession, 2. Preserving some fitness for the end of the game. They tend to only make guaranteed passes, so aren't going to just pump the ball forward in the hope of a mistake, they'd rather rely on their own skill. Some of the best goals of all-time came from "just passing it about". Brazil's goal in the 1970 Final against Italy. Argentina's 24 pass goal against Serbia & Montenegro, where only one player on the whole team failed to touch the ball. Both of those goals started with "just passing it about". Those passes are an attempt to draw players out of position, and they then hope to take advantage. That is part of the interest. It's a bit like a chess opening, called the Alekhine's - black moves his knight about (the ball) a lot without doing much, enticing white's pawns (the opposition players) forward. Suddenly, huge holes appear behind them, and an attack can be formed by the people in possession. I do agree that the "flopping and acting" is atrocious - sendings off should be brought in for that, a booking is not harsh enough. BTW If you "never play the sport and rarely watch it", I think that players that come from a lifetime's culture of the game may understand the value of what you percieve as "killing time". But back on the substitute idea, 3 is plenty, there used to be none, and unlimited was tried in friendlies, and it didn't work/annoyed everybody. Also, you cannot bring a substituted player back on, which would need to be changed I think if your idea was to work, but that would lead to a full team of attack v defence if need be, which is simply not in football's interests. If you watched the game more, you would understand that more.

I don't think unlimited subs is the answer. When Henry went off yesterday, I was pretty disappointed in him that he decided not to stick it out for another 15 minutes. But I do think that one extra sub should be alotted should the game proceed to extra time.

In a game where play never stops, it seems to be an awful lot to ask most of these guys to play 45 minutes straight (twice). Maybe they should allow for a couple timeouts for each team.

Best thing about the World Cup - It is over and will not return for 4 more years! Beyond that, I would like to see unlimited substitutions as well.

"Why has soccer not taken a token from other sports and allow more, if not unlimited, substitutions?" This is not the case in all other sports. Take baseball, for example. Do you think a starting pitcher should be able to come back in after resting a few innings? Why not bench Ortiz, then bring him in for an at bat every innning?