5 subs is stupid. 3 subs were far better. Now, you can replace half the outfield players, which basically means you can change tactics completely. It means more of the result is down to the manager. It also means there’s less need to prioritise which games are important, you can start with your best 11 every game, and just substitute later if the result allows it. It also benefits clubs with bigger budgets more, as they can afford having a higher quality bench.
Definitely an unpopular opinion.
You are correct in your comment below that the game is changing, but you seem to think that’s a bad thing. Change is good for keeping up with the times and keeping the game modern. In this case, the change is a necessity in my opinion as the players are playing a lot more games (and much more intensely) than they were 25 years ago. Rest and rotation is required.
It also allows for more young players to get time on the pitch and develop their talents for our future first squads.
You are correct also in saying that it encourages tactical changes by the manager, but again I don’t see how that is a bad thing. A world class tactician managing a team of highly athletic talented football players seems like everyone’s dream to watch.
It also keeps half the field fresh for the last 30 minutes to keep it exciting for the entire duration of the game.
I litterally see no bad sides to this. Sorry mate.