Fucking hell, this thread. Fair play to the based Argie
>more subs would be better
No, because then teams with unlimited budgets would blow away everyone else. When it's Man City vs WBA and each team can only, max, use 14 players, it's a damn sight fairer than 22 each. Because the subs Man City could afford would be better than West Brown's starters. This makes the game even more skewed towards money, and drives it even further away from any notion of a level playing field. Not that it's level now, but with more subs the gap would widen even further.
>rolling subs would be better
No, because then there would be a startling lack of fluidity in the game. The reason football is so good, so global, is because it's fun and easy to play, and also easy to watch. Complicate either one of those things and you're in trouble. And with rolling subs, you complicate both; you'd move towards offense vs defence, which reduces tactics to a constant set piece-esque scenario, which nobody wants to see. And in terms of the fans, they don't want to see an ever-so-slightly-shifting war of attrition, they want to see fluid, exciting games.
Because here's the kicker - flaws aren't bad. Americans dont understand this, because of countless reasons ('Superman ethos', bigger is better, immediate gratification, etc) but flaws make football what it is. If an attacking player can't defend as well as a defender, that doesn't mean you take him off when you can, and put him back on to attack. It means the TEAM must work together, cover for each other, and must compensate, and sacrifice. Fans want to see David Silva, a diminutive and silky playmaker, doing his best to play at being a rugged defender when he needs to be - because it's so much more gratifying. Not only to see a player work at every aspect of the game, and we can for an instant out ourselves in the same "jumpers for goalposts" shoes, but then when Silva gets on the ball...
Ah, fuck it. If you don't get it now, you never will.