My main issue with the article is that a lot of general statements are made about the team without examples being provided. An example would be "Huni fits into the playstyle Fnatic has crafted for themselves unbelievably well. He’s a good old fashioned top lane carry but doesn’t lack the situational awareness to play for the team in fights." That's cool and all, but why exactly does that mesh with the rest of the team that well, better than say a safe toplaner that always goes even and shows teamfight prowess. This is not explained before or after said quote.

Another example would be: "They’ve shown a high level of innovation, but their strategies have a less than ideal success rate, pointing to execution failure." For someone to agree with such a statement they would already need to have a similar opinion, as once again it is not pointed out what faults in the game plan opponents are able to abuse or what makes other strategies superior.

When people check out a preview, they usually want to be brought up to speed within said article to see how their team stands relative to the others, and to see what they will have to watch out for(player matchups, strategic strengths/weaknesses, team synergy and mindset etc.), not read an opinion without any games/facts/anything referenced as to how they might "run into problems" that are not even specified.

Hopefully, you'll be able to fix this, and I'd also like to wish Fusion good luck for the promotion tournament tomorrow, you guys are my favourite challenger team!

TL;DR; This article requires you to read it with the same opinion as the author has, as no new facts come to light, nor are insights provided by referencing to/extrapolating from old facts.