I think that the biggest change has been that all teams are over coached to the point that players are robotic with little if any room for individual play which leads to dour games.
Also for the number of interchanges has led to forward dominated thinking with again resulting poor quality games. For me once a player goes off he shouldn't be allowed to return which would rid the game of 15 minute "impact" players who more often than not are players who are way above their natural weight and find long minutes almost impossible.

Who says they "Need" more substitutes?
Thems just the rules
If we changed the rules to No substitutes thebplayets would adapt to that and have to pace themselves to those rules.

Simple fact is
Zero substitutions
10 substitutions
8 substitutions
Pr
6 substitutions (which is what I would go for)

Playing under any of the above the teams of today would murder the teams of yesteryear.
That's not to decry the players of yesteryear, quite the opposite, it's just tou can only be The player you were/are in the era you played in.
The players of yesteryear would have adapted etx in their own ways, and some would have made it and been a great today, some wouldn't.
And same could be said about players of today being transported back in time.
Some would adapt to the old ways, some wouldn't.

But the players of today are far far bigger, fitter, stronger etc etc as a whole that they were. They are also far more tactically amd technically astute as a whole than they were.

Going back and picking up recordings of moves that gregory/Edward's, Henry Paul/Connolly etc. etc did 20/30 years ago and think it would make us better now is as unrealistic as getting an Alex Murphy/Doug Laughton or whoever into coach us as they were great coaches, they were, in THEIR ERA.

Like it or not, if it were possible to physically lift the team of 1987/1995 up and drop them into today (and I am sure enforcer will tell me that if I think outside of the box then it could be possible) they would get beaten comfortably due to the advances in all the areas mentioned above.
That doesn't mean I think Tommy is a better scrum half than Greg or gildart is a better centre than gene miles or flower better than Platt. It's just the evolution of physical/tactical and technical abilities.

If the players of yesteryear had these benefits then they would undoubtedly be better than their current counterparts, but they didn't and the game has advanced so much (and not necessarily all of these are for the better).

I'm no Lam fan, but I suspect that's because he didn't realise the limitations of our halves last season. Then quickly realised when he got here and reverted to a Wane style of play, because that's all that would work.

We'll see this season.

The issue though is that a well drilled team will nearly always best an off the cuff team (See Australia 1972 to 2000) against GB
Weve tried to structure to match them and theyve moved on. And they will.co tongue to be in advance of us due to the advantageous they have over us from money to player pool currently.

I suppose the question is would be people like a less structured game at the expense of other things like Winning.

I believe that a reduction in substitutes to 6 will tire players enough to allow more time/space for ball players rather than what the game did 20 years ago increasing the substitutions to 10 to try and have the 13 players on the field playing at 100% of their abilities for 80mins.

There should always be a fatigue element in the game, it would be like giving boxers 10mins rest between each round and then wondering why just the biggest win/strongest win.

Which 80 minutes are you thinking of? I thought our best three performances were Catalans at home (1st one), Warrington away in the cup and probably Hull KR at home. We looked decent in the first half against Cas at their place but fell away badly.

Those aside, I agree its not a pretty sight. 2nd place yes but how many wins were impressive? We were grinding out results but playing so far within ourselves.

I completely agree with the over coaching and robotic point but from time to time we do see the teams that play with flair and off the cuff such as Cas and more recently St Helens. As much as we may complain about structure and robotics; it’s what won us trophies under both Maguire and Wane. There’s a balance to be found IMO.

I get where you’re coming from re substitutes but not quite sure I entirely agree. I’m for the rolling on/off substitutes to be honest, I have a soft spot for impact players who more often than not are proven to be good game players too.

Catalan at home. Was a genuine excellent 80mins. Really notable issues in the other games. I think I could have forgiven a lot of the performances if we turned up v Salford in the playoffs at home; but that was a truly dismal display.

At the end of the day it's a team game, furthermore a squad game. To get the most out of the each play you all need to know what each person is doing and when they're doing it. So you employ set structures which allow a fluid team attack with accurate passing and movement and everyone know's what each person is doing. Additionally, if a structure is in place it makes it easier to replace injured or suspended players, as the new player knows the structure of the team and will have more chance of success slotting into a well drilled well structured team.
Additionally if a team is dependent on a half or two to create the play...what happens if the half is injured? A new half steps in and isn't as effective, meaning the team aren't half as effective.

The truth is that a player can be creative and play 'off the cuff' rugby when the time is right even within the structure, the team will never run the set plays for each and every set.

3rd attempt at replying to this
You could argue quite strongly that Wigan fans don't just want to win in era of winning trophies but declining attendances with many ex fans criticising the quality of the play.

For me there is a difference between a well drilled team and being over coached. Last year Saints were an exceptionally well drilled team however, they also threw the ball about when a player thought it was the right play. A good coach who believed in his team to let them [lay a bit.
The game is about players not coaches but I'm probably just too biased in my opinions

I think that more substitutions has been a major factor in the decline of the game as a spectacle and a reduction in skill levels across all positions. This is particularly so in the forwards where the use of 5 or 6 props in a game has been pretty disastrous and i really dislike of a prop at 13.

Maybe we have had the wrong balance? Winning trophies and reduced attendances sounds like a oxymoron to me.

Sorry to disagree but I dont in general like "impact" players. If they were any good they would be in the starting 13.
Name me half a dozen great or even really good impact players?
I know that you will name some and im sure they may be decent players but if they are that good why put them on the bench?? Will your list of impact players include any backs?

Multiple substitutions leads to athletes rather than rugby players.