I sat on the bench for four years unused! | Jeff Probyn

Substitutes, replacements, tactical subs, impact players or finishers… whatever you like to call them they are the bone of contention for many changes and confusions in the game.

With over half a team now available to come on during a match, the whole nature of what was a fifteen aside game has been completely changed.

When substitutes were first introduced, it was to keep the game a fair competition by allowing teams to replace an injured player so as not to disadvantage them.

With just three replacements in those early days, the ‘bench' was usually a balance of one front row player, one back row/ second row and a utility back.

The increase in numbers of possible replacements was introduced because the realisation that certain areas of play (the front row) required specialist skills that needed qualified players for all three positions to sit on the bench in case an injury occurred.

When I played international rugby you could be replaced only if a doctor confirmed that your injury was so bad you couldn't rejoin the game.

Cuts were not considered bad enough (even if they required stitches) to allow a substitution, so a quick patch-up at the side of the pitch and back into the fray was the norm.

A blow to the head was usually treated with the ‘magic sponge' unless you were knocked unconscious, then you were taken from the field and not allowed to return to play for at least three weeks.

It was theis three-week break that encouraged many players to lie about their injury in an effort to try and return earlier than they should. It was not about money because the game was amateur, purely for the love of playing the game.

As the number of replacements has increased under the guise of ‘player welfare' we are now at a level which has actually created a player welfare issue and sadly destroyed many areas of competition within the game.

This is not new as many players past and present have complained about the increases and the potential risks for a number of years, but the recent comments by Sam Warburton have struck home and seem to have gained a modicum of acknowledgement from World Rugby.

Personally, I think it was Sam's comment ‘that someone might die in front of a mass audience on television' that hit home, as that would be a disaster for any sport and potentially financially ruinous

“Games used to be as much about the fitness of the players as the tactics coached” should the main TV providers pull out.

One of the reasons that little has been done before is that it provides a ‘get out of jail card' to coaches and teams.

Selection used to be final, in the sense that the coach chose his team and, barring accident or injury, they played for the entire 80 minutes of the match.

Games were as much about the fitness of the players as the tactics coached, with most teams trying to pressure their opponents in the hope that fatigue would provide an opportunity.

Unlike now where the set-piece plays are so one-sided that the team with the throw or put in are almost guaranteed to win their line out or scum possession or a penalty. Ours were a true contest.

This was proven by Nigel Owens who, when commentating on the Lions and asked why the ball was allowed to be constantly fed into the second row, replied, ‘Oh we don't referee that nowadays'.

As a result, the need for certain skill sets are now diminished so the bench could be reduced to five with utility players.

The competition in all areas of play and constant pressure helped create cracks in defence and mistakes as players became tired so the last 20 minutes of the game provided some of the best opportunities for scores.

By allowing the increase in substitutes World Rugby has undermined a huge part of the ‘entertainment' value of the game, creating a boring situation where teams can replace over half their players to mitigate the effects of fatigue.

The funny thing is you would expect the role of a finisher to be to take advantage of the opposition at a time when they are feeling the pressure, but it seems that both sides use them just to continue bashing away at each other as if restarting the game from the beginning.

For the players now a place on the bench is almost an unwritten guarantee of a cap as at some point they are likely to be ‘subbed' on, in fact they expect to go on even if just for five minutes.

When I sat on the bench it was with mixed feelings as the only way I would get on the pitch was if one of my teammates got injured.

For over four seasons I sat on the bench for England never once getting on the field. I would be a liar if I said there weren't any occasions when I felt more than a little disappointed at not being given a chance, particularly at the ‘87 World Cup.

I have to say I think it will be very difficult for World Rugby to make clubs go back to a reduced number of substitutes as most coaches would protest that it is taking away some of the tactical advantage of changing the game midway through a match.

But what they are really saying is: If I make a wrong selection I won't be able to save face and perhaps my job, if the numbers on the bench are reduced.

JEFF PROBYN