Substitutions in sport are now the norm. However the big question is are they now in fact killing the contest between two teams?
It is interesting to note that the Australian-based VFL/AFL resisted the idea of substitutes even for an injury when it was suggested at the turn of the last century. The reason was they did not trust players to not fake injury so a fresh play could come on. They waited until 1930 to allow a replacement player onto the field of play.
Cricket, despite having a twelfth man, who could come on and field, but was not allowed to bat or bowl took even longer to allow a substitute. In 2017 a specialist wicket-keeper was allowed to come on if the first choice player was injured, rather than one of the outfield players taking the gloves. Then in July 2019, the International Cricket Council agreed to allow the use of concussion replacements in all international cricket matches from 1 August 2019, with the substitute having to be a “like-for-like replacement.”
Other than these two changes they have stood firm on allowing replacement players to come on if a player is injured during the match and allow them to bat or bowl. Of course over the history of the game there have been accusations levelled at opposing teams for bringing on ‘a specialist fielder.’
A recent example was when in the 2005 Ashes Series England used Gary Pratt as a specialist substitute fielder. He then ran-out the Australian captain Ricky Ponting, which caused friction between the teams and highlighted this tactic. A similar accusation was levelled at England in the 1985 Ashes series at Trent Bridge when Nottinghamshire’s specialist short-leg, Kenyan-born Basharat Hassan came on and fielded in that specific position.
Clearly both of these examples were aimed to benefit the fielding side.
There have also been some notorious incidents which have not been genuine to try and alter the course of a game or get a substitute on.
In 2009 in rugby union, Harlequins player Tom Williams used a fake blood capsule to simulate a facial injury. This allowed the team to bring a specialist kicker back onto the field. Harlequins were caught, and received significant fines and suspensions.
In 2024 Netball changed it’s rules to allow for “tactical changes” after goals, this was explicitly aimed at eliminating faked injuries which were being used to enable substitutions.
In football people have found references to substitutes in rmatch reports in the 19th century. However, it is believed that these were often stand-ins for players who were late turning up, and who were replaced when the late player finally arrived.
Substitutes were first allowed in the qualifying tournament for the 1954 World Cup. The first ever substitution being when Richard Gottinger replaced Horst Eckel in West Germany’s match against the Saarland. Despite this, substitutions were not permitted in the World Cup Finals until 1970.
The Football League in England only decided to allow substitutes from the start of the 1965-66 season, although they were only to be used to replace an injured player.
On the 21st of August 1965 Charlton’s Keith Peacock became enshrined in football history by becoming the first substitute when he came on for injured goalkeeper Mike Rose at Bolton.
In that very first season there were suspicions that some players were feigning injuries to allow their team to make a tactical substitution. In 1967, the rule was changed to allow substitutions for any reason.
Of course once that rule came in there was pressure to allow teams two substitutes. There was also a push to allow teams to have a reserve goalkeeper who could come on if the chosen goalkeeper was injured or sent off. A stand-in goalkeeper, one of the outfield players putting on what used to be the green jersey was always entertaining. Some did exceptionally well, as Lucas Radebe did for Leeds United. However, it did disadvantage teams.
In 1987 the rules were changed to allow a second substitute. Since then there have been regular rule changes, starting with allowing two outfield substitutes plus a goalkeeper, up to the current position of allowing up to five of nine nominated substitutes to be used in the Premier and Football League. It was three from seven for a while.
In 1973 Field Hockey introduced a rule whereby teams were allowed two substitutes per game. That increased to three in 1989, and then in 1992 rolling substitutes became the norm. Now in a 60 minute match some players will only be on the field for a third of that time.
Rugby Union has also seen a rise in the number of substitutes allowed. In 1968 the laws of the game stated that: “in matches in which a national representative team is playing, when replacements are allowed subject to the following conditions –
(i) not more than two players in each team may be replaced.
(iii) a player may be replaced only when, in the opinion of a medical practitioner, the player is so injured that he should not continue playing in the match,
(iii) a player who has been replaced must not resume playing in the match.”
One early example of a substitute making an impact occurred that same year at the Sydney Cricket Ground. New Zealand flanker, Ian Kirkpatrick, came onto the field in the 22nd minute as a substitute for the All Black captain, Brian Lochore, he then remarkably scored three tries which helped the All Blacks to a 27-11 victory over the Wallabies in the first test.
Now up to eight tactical substitutions can be made per match. The one requirement is that teams must have enough specialised front-row players to ensure contested scrums. If a team cannot provide a trained replacement for an injured prop or hooker, scrums must become uncontested. Proof that the front row is indeed a dark place for specialists!
Historically, the front row forwards were often the ones who would fatigue the most in a game as they were not renowned for their running. Now it is a regular occurrence to see all three front row forwards replaced, and fresh legs come on.
In football the nine substitutes on the bench has resulted in cynics claiming that this has only come about as a way of managing the egos of the highly paid players in the Premiership. The extended numbers on the bench enable the big clubs to keep more of their highly-paid talent that they have stockpiled in their squads happy, as by being one of the nine it increases their chance of an occasional first team run. Thereby limiting the discontent in the squad. Of course it has far less relevance in the lower divisions, where clubs often do not have such a wealth of talent.
The big question across all the sports now is are so many substitutes ruining the games, and also affecting the outcome of games?
These changes have effectively turned what was a team game into a squad game. The success of each team is now solely dependent on the depth of their squad. This is so apparent at international level across a myriad of sports.
Whereas before a good team may well be able to match a superior team in terms of match preparation, tactics, and fitness, and one or possibly two substitutions would not alter things too much now the substitutions and a larger number of fresh players can make a vast difference. This is why so rarely today do we see the upsets that we saw in the past. Upsets that made sport so intriguing and exciting. Upsets that also allowed supporters of lesser teams to dream of what might happen. Is that not one of the joys of supporting a team dreaming and hoping that they can upset a richer, more renowned side?
Today second tier international sides can often hold a top nation for a period of time, but as fatigue starts to become a part of the game the changes the teams are able to make become more and more evident of the real gulf between the two sides.
That fatigue issue, be it physical or mental is now no longer a key component in the outcome; or very rarely is.
Is that why modern-day sport has become so predictable? Is it why so many contests are in fact quite dull?
Gone are the days when a coach/manager pinned up the team sheet on a match day and then worried that they had made the right selections. Today if his club or national team has the resources to fill their bench with quality players on par with those starting the game, if one player is having a bad day they can immediately make a change. That change limiting their risk of defeat.
There are a generation who remember the days before substitutions were so plentiful. They are a generation who arguably enjoyed sporting contests at their best. If some sports want to start trying to level the playing field and make the contest truly about who was the best on the day, rather than about who has the most money behind them as a club or an international program, maybe they will have the courage to revisit the whole matter of how many substitutions are allowed in a game.
For example, in sports where there is interchange it has been suggested that once a player comes off in the last period of play, they cannot come back on. In other sports it has been put forward that a restriction be imposed where no substitutions are allowed in the last 20 minutes. Would this create more excitement, and make the contest more even?
Clearly substitutions have taken away the level playing field amongst competing teams and nations. It is a topic that will continue to cause great debate as long as the big name teams and the nations with the biggest investment in their programs continue to benefit.
However, one feels that if the various sports are looking at the bigger picture and looking to restore a more balanced competition between teams a revision of the current rules in many sports would be hugely beneficial to the majority of clubs, national teams, and the sport itself.
