Fewer substitutions in rugby?

There's an interesting article here that talks about how rugby could be improved if fewer substitutions were allowed.

Basically the author is saying that if you allow fewer substitutions then your players have to be that much fitter and there is less room for enormous powerful players (he uses Will Skelton as an example) and more emphasis on fitness and skills.

I think he makes a lot of good points but the one thing he doesn't discuss is versatility. One recent change to rugby's laws that I don't like at all is the increase in subs from 7 to 8 to allow for an extra prop. As per the link above, this means you never need to worry about either of your props lasting the 80 minutes but it also does away with that most valuable commodity in rugby, the prop who can pack on either side of the scrum. There's no longer a requirement for a prop to be able to fulfill the roles of loosehead and tighthead which I find a bit sad.

Anyway, it's an interesting read and I for one wouldn't complain if the number of subs was reduced . . . or - as is suggested in the link - you allow a bench of 8 players of which only, say, 5 can be used.

It would suit NewZealand well- especially in the SuperXV. 
For the Boks a player like Warren Whitley could be in the equation more and the e nd of the A lberts type player. 

 Yup our boys wouldnt give a fig ,that last 20 minutes would be even more of a nightmare for the opposition.Especially the gym junkies in the NH sides like Wales and England.