Why not 23 man squads?

[Storty]

This is something I've wondered about for a while. Given the increased focus on player safety and the physicality of the league does anyone know why only 5 subs are allowed? I believe the "Champ" has 23 man squads.

It also handicaps tactical flexibility. You essentially need a prop, hooker, scrum half, utility forward, utility back.

I'd have thought 23 man squads would be better all round.

[jblee]

The problem with more than 5 subs is that it takes players away from 2nd XVs.

[Camquin]

Why has the professional game gone to 23 men?
The sport always used to be about playing for 80 minutes.
Which meant people trained for stamina.
Now the train for impact.

I am not sure it improved the game.

[stonehousealbion]

I think 20 man squads are semi-pro/Nat 1-appropriate.

Don't forget - we have 10 "rolling" substitutions which allow for players to come back on later in the game. 23 man squads - which apparently allow for a comlete front row as well as cover for the remaining 12 are an additional expense, especially when travelling.

In an 8-month season with 26 games, the current arrangements seem fitting - especially when not (- thankfully) pandering to a TV audience.

[jblee]

I think 20 man squads are semi-pro/Nat 1-appropriate.

Don't forget - we have 10 "rolling" substitutions which allow for players to come back on later in the game. 23 man squads - which apparently allow for a comlete front row as well as cover for the remaining 12 are an additional expense, especially when travelling.

In an 8-month season with 26 games, the current arrangements seem fitting - especially when not (- thankfully) pandering to a TV audience.

That in English club rugby largely isn't there!

(No matter how hard the marketing folk to pretend it is).