I reckon this will fly right against most current thinking, but I am a vehement opponent to the current interchange practices.
The idea of continually swapping players on and off the ground, in my opinion, takes out of the game the advantage that players with true stamina should enjoy over those players who are not fit enough to run a game out. I'm old enough to have seen and enjoyed games where the final quarter was a battle of willpower with those players with stamina gradually wearing down and overtaking the 'Brer Rabbit' flashy types.
It's riduculous to have well over a hundred interchanges per game. If we must have interchanges, I favour limiting them to (say) four interchanges at each quarter break, and perhaps another four during each quarter - a maximum total of 28 per game.
To the response that this would slow the game down, my response is "so what!" Where is it written in stone that a faster game of football is a better one?
I actually agree with this, i go and watch local football and you dont see a million interchanges there, and for me it makes a better match to watch. As players fatigue, it becomes more about long kicking, pack marking and better skills rather then players hording around the ball and turning it into a rugby scrum. Thats why over the past 8 years local football to me has eclipsed AFL matches.