FUSIONISM
This is an attempt to expand, make clear and refine the ideas laid forward in this piece I wrote recently.
To start, I think it is appropriate to make clear that the definition of Fusionism — or coining a manager as a Fusionist that I have done — should not be viewed as definitive. The game is all about experiences and interpretations, I might see things in a way that you don’t, but you might see things in a way that I don’t. This piece should be not viewed as the holy grail, the comprehensive ultimatum, it is merely an interpretation of the tactical makeup of our game.
The original Fusionism ideology- the attempt by philosopher Frank Meyer to combine left-wing social libertarianism with right-wing conservatism. He inspired Ronald Reagan to produce “modern conservatism” with his work in the National Review paper, as well as in his book In Defense of Freedom.
The fusion of differing methods, processes, and ideas into one coherent setup.
“Meyer had an appreciation of the importance of freedom for human flourishing and the importance of federalism to safeguard individual freedom”
When theorising and discussing, it is important to distinguish the separation between holistic approaches to football and styles of play. Postionism and Relationism are holistic approaches to the game — representing more than just a tactical identity for a team on the pitch. They are deeper and more aligned with the club’s approach as a whole, being framed more as a way of life and not a type of action. A style of play is a type of action, it is exclusive to the pitch and the manager’s decisions, shaping how the team wants to play in every facet of the game
Fusionism would be viewed as a holistic approach to football. But, the attribution of positionist and relationist terms to coaches is more clear — in positionism and relationism setups the movements and interactions are starkly different, but they are more clearly identifiable. Fusionism is a more abstract concept, it is not as easily recognisable as it maintains a middling position in the tactical spectrum. Yet, my self-doubt comes when the question this question is presented. Can the idea of Fusionism and a coach being a Fusionist thrive, when all managers placed under that tactical umbrella have different variations and interpretations of the maintained, general idea of Fusionism as a concept?
(I think that it is also important to make clear the difference between a Fusional side and a Functional side. You would class managers like Thomas Frank, Roy Hodgson, and Max Allegri as Functional. Meaning that they want their sides to perform specific functions in the game and not deviate from the plan (( this is often directed by player profile )) — playing long, seating deep, and not committing too many men forward. Whereas a Fusional side is more adaptable and instinctive, they too are heavily influenced by player profile, but are less rigid in their tactical instructions and have a level of flexibility that allows them to shift between different “approaches” throughout the game)
In the piece New School, we cited Erik Ten Haag, Xavi, Mikel Arteta, and Julian Nagelsmann as being managers who espouse the ideas of a Fusional approach. The approach is not exclusive to these four, it just resonates more with them. As the tactical eyes focus on what four of the most prominent managers in world football do. But, Fusionism is found in many places.
The Subtle Fusionist
There are many subtle fusionists, it is hard to find a manager that is eternally devoted to one singular idea of how the game should be played, never looking elsewhere for the solution. The only answers that are present on the tactical landscape would be Marcelo Bielsa, and his disciples — Tata Martino, and Jorge Sampoali, who all have an unwavering adoration for a certain brand of football. Subtle fusionists are all around us. The high priest of positionism, Pep Guardiola is constantly innovating, which leads him to seek ideas from various sources. Tuchel and Klopp are other examples of managers who can be classed as subtle fusionists — seemingly wedded to the vertical, high press, Germanic game, but who both sought to expand their methodology, with small changes and differences.
Ancelotti and Zidane used — and are using — aspects of Fusionism. Some may say that both of them — mainly Ancelotti — were more aligned with Relationism, yet Madrid used more Relational principles rather than having a Relationist approach. Acknowledging the difference between principles and approaches is crucial to understanding the discourse. ( Principles of play can be applied in the game from a specific, tactical school of thought, but the whole game setup does not have to be exclusive to said school.)
(I would break up the notion of subtle fusionists into two categories, the Guardiola/Klopp group — where they have their set school of thought, but apply small changes and adjustments. Ancelotti/ Zidane group where they have a simple focus on getting the attacking players in dangerous zones and sitting in a mid-block, while occasionally using ideas from different tactical sources.)
The ball was used as a reference in certain moments and when specific interactions between players were enacted, but the system was not directed by Relationism. It would be more logical therefore, to categorise Ancelotti and Zidane under the umbrella of Fusionism — placing them too far either way on the tactical spectrum would not take into account the, positional ideals used, their ability to play in a low block, and the devasting tendencies on the counter. They assembled a tactical chameleon of a side. Yet their effect on the school of Fusionism is perhaps more subtle than others occupying the same tactical paradigm.
The Moderate Fusionist
Like the methodology they represent, a moderate Fusionist would be found in the middle of the spectrum. They have a greater deal of variability and are willing to adapt more than a subtle Fusionsit, yet still, they are heavily guided by a singular tactical ideal. The most prominent examples are, Mikel Arteta and Xavi.
The tactical ideal that influences and prophetically guides the pair, is of course Guardiolaism. Both Arteta and Xavi do not need prompting to confess their adoration for the impact that Guardiola has had on their coaching journey. Watching Barcelona and Arsenal play — especially this season — a lot of Guardiola/positional ideas have been implemented. The utlisitation of Jules Kounde and Ben White is very reminiscent of what Guardiola has done with Kyle Walker, et al. The pair also have got their players (Pedri and Gavi, Xhaka and Odegaard) to operate how De Bruyne and Gundogan do for City, having the ability to attack the half spaces but to also rotate zonally with others.
Contrary to that, Arteta and Xavi are more guided by their player profile than Guardiola. The example below showcases Xavi’s utilisation of his squad makeup. He uses the ball progression, and carrying ability of De Jong by having him drop into the position of center-back, which allows Barcelona to progress the ball more easily. Barca decides not to do this, instead, they favour a more vertical approach by utilising the profile of Lewandowski — his height and ability to hold up the ball.
Below, we can see the appreciation that Arteta has for his player profile — respecting this and not seeking to impose collective conformity in how every player plays, is a key part of his tactical setup. Jesus is more comfortable dropping into the half-spaces to collect the ball than staying in the last line. This tendency not only suits Jesus but reciprocates well with other profiles in the side — the right half-space occupation restricts the midfield two of Leeds, and this allows Odegaard to roam free in the left half-space, the area of the pitch he is most potent in. Further to this, Arteta’s instructions for Trossard to position himself in front of the back two are in line with Trossard’s profile — his spatial awareness and ability manoeuvre in a way that only benefits his side — which in turn disrupts the Leeds backline.
The greater degree of guidance that the players have on the team is only part of the Fusional characteristics. The examples below — from this previous piece — showcase Xavi’s and Arteta’s variation, deploying shades of a Germanic and Relationist school of thought
I mentioned that the moderate fusionist is less wedded to a tactical ideal than a subtle fusionist — Klopp, Guardiola, and Tuchel. Yet, you would not associate Zidane and Ancelotti — who I classed as subtle fusionists — as being wedded to a single school of thought. I think that where the distinction between them and Xavi and Arteta should be drawn, is that Ancelotti and Zidane we’re not making radical changes within games. They never espoused a level of tactical flexibility like — at times — Xavi and Arteta have in games, shifting between positional and relational attacking methods, or varying their depth in the buildup. Ancelotti and Zidane were primarily focused on getting Ronaldo, Benzema, and Vinicius Jr the ball in dangerous areas. The rest of the side is so good that it can almost take care of itself. This allowed for just a simple possession based system, with relational and positional ideas used sporadically.
The Comprehensive fusionist
What separates this sub-group from the two mentioned previously is the degree of flexibility and the level of adaptability that a side can implement. To have a side that is constantly changing its way of building up, pressing, playing through the lines, attacking zones, overloading, and counterpressing …throughout the game.
The two clearest examples of a comprehensive Fusionist are Julian Nagelsmann and Erik Ten Haag. (one could argue that Julian Naglesmann would be placed under the moderate fusionist tag, considering his adoration for Guardiola. Yet he explored a much wider range of the tactical spectrum when he was at Bayern). Both are not attached to a prophetic, school of thought (Arteta and Xavi) and both are not employing subtle tweaks and changes to a clear and defined system (Ancelotti/Zidane Klopp/Guardiola), no, they are tactical outliers. They have found a middling point on the tactical spectrum, that does not implore them to think from the perspective of the positionist, the relationist, or the substantavalist, but from a position of context. Everything is built around the context — it is a multi-layered approach, combining the very, best elements of our tactical paradigm to be used in any situational moment.
(The notion that everything is built around the context from the point of a fusionist and a relationist, is different. A relationist does not seek to impose a set, or structure on how to play but lets relationships, movements, and interactions grow organically — deriving from the contextual background of the players and the landscape they now preside. Alternatively, a fusionist will build around the context of the game. How can we use the profile of my players to hurt them, should we play in a more set, positional manner or a more, free-flowing relational approach? It is constantly changing and allows the fusionist coach to have a level of unrivaled flexibility. While a relationist will play relationally, regardless of the game or opposition.)
Both Nagelsmann and Ten Haag have deployed a fusional approach this season. Nagelsmann seems conflicted with his beliefs on how the game should be played. He was part of the rising wave of high-pressing, vertical-loving, German coaches but his development since then has seen him mesh those ideas with a more possessional and measured approach. That complication was clear to see earlier in the season at Bayern. (Clarissa Barcala expertly outlined how Nagelsmann has fleeted between a Relational and Postitional setup earlier in the season) The uncertainty — or more pertinently lack of clarity and conviction from Nagelsmann in what he wanted — manifested its way onto the pitch and was a factor in Bayern consistently stumbling, which resulted in him being sacked.
Yet, it is not to say that the Fusional approach cannot be a success. Ten Hag has shown that at the club not so attached to an idolised way of playing as Bayern, deploying an adaptive and flexible approach can work well and come to fruition. (United have shown drastic, tactical improvements, from the discombobulated mess that they were in last season under two managers who are not attuned to the modern, tactical climate)
While Nagelsmann has fused Positional and Relational ideas. Ten Hag has focused more on the profile of his players, arguably developing an even greater degree of variability and flexibility in United’s style. (although one could argue that the relationist setup deployed was attuned to the profiles of Mane/Muller, while a positional setup was more in line with Chupo -Moting/Coman/Sane who are all traditionalists in their respective positions.)
This sub-group is the most fusional of all. Most in line with the modern, footballing, social climate that it presides over. Not seeking to impose blanket conformity, to only have one singular ideal, one perspective on the way we should operate. But rip off the rigidness and be receptive, to the ideas that are all around us. To be flexible and fluid, and look for solutions in any form that they may come. That is the essence of Fusionism.
Player profile
Player profile — its utilisation and appreciation- is the most important aspect of Fusionism, as a managerial school of thought.
Fusional managers are more reciprocal to working with a variety of players, not imposing their will on them — deconstructing their game to rebuild them in their idyllic way — but accommodating their particular traits. Ten Hag has built upon the profile of Casemiro, Weghorst, Rashford, and others to varying degrees. Whilst Arteta has got the best out of Saka and Martinelli by not contriving them to particular zones.
But to say Guardiola — and other positionism managers — are not influenced by the profile of his players would not be correct — there are examples of him working with Fabian Delph at City, and Rafhina at Bayern to fix problems by using a certain type of profile and not changing his prerogative. While a subtle fusionist, Klopp has got the best out of Alexander Arnold by prioritising the effect he can have on the ball, over the detriment it can lead to the team being out of possession. These players fitted into what he wanted the team to do, performing specific functions directed by their managers
The difference boils down to the accommodation-to-imposition relationship that a manager must have with his team is swayed more to imposition when it comes to Guardiola and others. A fusional manager — of all degrees — is more accommodating to the skills of their players, working around them. Allowing for a team to have a multitude of combinations and patterns, due to having varying degrees of individual qualities bestowed by the players.
Mentioning the accommodation to imposition relationship that a manager must have with their players — concerning the degree of freedom that they are granted — we can take this a step further by breaking down each fusionist sub-group utilisation of their player’s profile.
Ancelotti and Zidane — as subtle fusionists — do not seek to build everything around the player profile, favouring a more languid approach. As mentioned earlier the focus is primarily on the attacking players, placing them in positions to combine, as well as utilising a positional and relational approach in the buildup, depending on the opposition. In this case, the profile almost takes care of itself, the level of Benzema, Vinicius, Ronaldo, Bale, and others, they do not need to be placed in situations that are going to get the best out of them, they can form those solutions themselves. The same can be applied to the midfield, the level is so high, that they do not need directing — merely being guided from game situation to game situation by a loose framework from the manager.
While a subtle fusionist loosely adheres to his player’s profile by imposing a framework that allows their profiles to flourish, a moderate fusionist — in the ilk of Arteta and Xavi — actively seeks to get the best out of the game, by allowing a degree of guidance from them when forming his in-game decisions. One of the key traits that Arteta and others have imposed is the idea of minimum width, something that we mentioned in the previous piece. This is perhaps the most prominent example from this school of thought (in its essence it gives players more chances to be destructive as an individual, rather than play more collectively). Tasking players to play in particular zones, with the intention not to prey on weaknesses in defense, but to allow them to utlisise their attacking capabilities by situating them further inside, meaning they are in greater proximity of their teammates.
As well as utlising the idea of minimum width, Arsenal and Barcelona espouse a level of athleticism commonly associated with a Germanic side, due to the makeup of the squad. We showcased earlier the example of the high-pressing game that Xavi has implemented on his side. Xavi has not compromised or sought to restrict the athletic potential of his players, by crafting an out-of-possession approach that aims to be as compact as possible. Rather, he has embraced it and worked around the tools at his disposal, which in turn has allowed them to display such variability in attack due to the work they do off the ball and the positions that they take up.
The differentiation that can be drawn between a moderate fusionist approach and a comprehensive fusionist approach is not so stark. I think that where the difference lies in the fact that Xavi and Arteta are guided by their player profile to an extent that they have crafted solutions for them in both attack and defence (High pressing, minimum width) but still maintain an ideal of how the game should be played, whereas a comprehensive fusionist is not guided to an extent, he is guided predominately by the player profile, which creates substantial flexibility in both possession and in defence.
At United, that flexibility is epitomised no more than with Bruno Fernandes, who has the capabilities to play in the 10,8 or at times as a 6. This allows Ten Hag to lean on the profiles of Weghorst (deploying his work rate in the number 10 position allows for a better Man United press) and Antony ( who looks to occupy positions in a similar realm to Bruno — who looks to drift out, while Antony likes to come in on his right foot). The flexibility of personnel such as Weghorst and Fernandes on an individual level manifests itself across the team — they deploy a range of attacking solutions, that are positional, relational, or born out through individual quality.
Julian Nageslmann follows a similar line of thought when it comes to crafting his side. The attacking makeup of Gnabry, Musiala, Muller, and Mane all bestow a large degree of positional flexibility — all having a great appreciation of spatial awareness and a high technical level, which in turn allowed Nagelsmann to attack, defend, and buildup in a variety of ways. It would have been reductionist — on the part of Nagelsmann — to contrive forwards of such dynamism and ability to particular zones, at all moments.
(I would not class a comprehensive fusionist as being solely guided by player profile, it is in the range of 70–80%. This season Ten Hag has been resolute to play from the back with the profiles of Maguire and De Gea, even though they are not as comfortable doing so. Showing that regardless of the squad makeup, he remains eternally attributed to his core principles. This perspective can be attributed to Nageslmann, who at Leipzig moulded the side into a more possession-based team, even though they were — and always have been — renowned for being an extremely direct and vertical side.)
Can the idea of Fusionism and a coach being a Fusionist thrive, when all managers placed under that tactical umbrella have different variations and interpretations of the maintained, general idea of Fusionism as a concept?
The question that we posed at the start, alluded to my trepidation about placing Fusionism as a managerial school of thought, alongside some of its more well-known peers.
To me, it holds great pertinence and is deserving of a place. Yet, I am not the one that needs convincing. As more of an abstract concept rather than a set-in-stone alternative, it is perhaps harder for others to fully grasp its true meaning.
Unlike positionism or relationism it does not withhold specific movements or has a defined way of playing the game. People can easily identify positionism because they can see the typical 3–2–5/2–3–5/3–6–1 setups, the idea that players should occupy specific zones, and the maintained purpose of circulating the ball in a way that draws the defence out of their structure. While relationism is known for its unorthodoxy. Players localise around the ball and the player, not the space — while having defined movements such as tilting, the tabela, and the yo-yo.
Perhaps its globalised recognition will come as this crop of managers that currently espouse its ideas, grow further and further in their stature. It is not going to go away. As the masses come to recognise that in — lamen term — it is the most logical solution for the socio-cultural landscape that we currently inhibit. The vociferous divide has created two extremes, why can’t we mesh two differing ideas together to create one uniformed, all-encompassing approach?
The answer is we can.
“The solution is a philosophical synthesis of both freedom and tradition, the solution to the dilemma is “grasping it by both horns” and accepting the tension between the two.” Frank Meyer
