Pressure Mounts on Al-Ahli Manager Matthias Pusic as Khalid Al-Shunaif Questions Team Selection and Artem Bondarenko Dependence

Al-Ahli's problems in Jeddah have moved beyond the results on the pitch. A crushing 6-1 defeat to Al-Shabab was followed by a goalless draw against Al-Sadd, leaving serious questions about the club's tactics, team selection and the decision-making of head coach Matthias Pusic. Saudi football analyst Khalid Al-Shunaif delivered a particularly sharp assessment on the television programme Dawrina Ghair, arguing that he could not consider a coach who relied on Artem Bondarenko to be a genuine coach in the first place. His remarks have become a focal point of the debate surrounding Al-Ahli's current situation.

However, viewing this dispute simply as a television pundit's frustration or a reaction to two disappointing results would overlook the larger questions. Can Pusic establish a consistent and reliable playing system with the players available to him? And is Al-Ahli's problem genuinely tactical, or does it reflect the difficulty of managing a squad containing high-profile players with different expectations and responsibilities?

Two matches, two different problems and an unstable identity

The 6-1 defeat to Al-Shabab raised serious questions about Al-Ahli's defensive organisation. It is easy to blame individual errors after conceding six goals, but such a result can also indicate a breakdown in coordination across several areas. The distances between defence and midfield, the team's reaction after losing possession and its ability to prevent counterattacks all deserve examination.

The subsequent 0-0 draw against Al-Sadd exposed another side of the problem. Against Al-Shabab, Al-Ahli appeared vulnerable defensively; against Al-Sadd, its inability to score raised questions about attacking effectiveness. When a team experiences such different problems across consecutive matches, its underlying playing identity deserves scrutiny.

Nevertheless, drawing conclusions about an entire season from two results would be premature. The available analysis contains no expected goals (xG), expected goals against (xGA), possession figures, pressing intensity measurements such as PPDA or shot-creation data. It is therefore impossible to establish whether Al-Ahli created enough chances against Al-Sadd but failed to convert them, or whether its possession was largely ineffective passing. Similarly, the 6-1 defeat cannot automatically be treated as proof of a permanent defensive weakness.

Dependence on Bondarenko: tactical necessity or coaching preference?

The most controversial part of Al-Shunaif's criticism concerns Artem Bondarenko. The analyst alleges that Pusic depends excessively on the Ukrainian player in his attacking plans. The debate provides an opportunity to distinguish between individual preference and tactical necessity.

If a team's progression, final passing and attacking rhythm depend heavily on one creative midfielder, opponents can develop a relatively straightforward plan to neutralise that player. They can assign an additional midfielder to restrict his space, close passing lanes and apply pressure before he receives possession. The entire attacking structure can subsequently lose its rhythm.

Al-Ahli need to develop a second creative route around Bondarenko. This could involve another central midfielder, a winger or overlapping full-backs. Such alternatives would make it more difficult for opponents to stop the entire attack simply by neutralising one player. However, the available information contains no details about Bondarenko's positioning, progressive passes, chances created or the contribution of other creative players. Al-Shunaif's accusation therefore remains an unverified tactical assessment rather than an established statistical conclusion.

It is also important to understand Bondarenko's role correctly. He is more appropriately assessed as an attacking midfielder than as a conventional forward. Misidentifying his position can distort an evaluation of his responsibilities and contribution. Before questioning dependence on a player, analysts must establish where he operates within the team's structure and what his role requires.

Mendy and Galeno raise bigger questions about selection

The cases of goalkeeper Edouard Mendy and attacking player Galeno are particularly important in the criticism of Pusic. According to Al-Shunaif, both players were available and fit but were not receiving the opportunities expected. The available account also states that both impressed against Al-Sadd. These claims have placed the manager's selection decisions under considerable scrutiny.

Goalkeeper selection is fundamental to a team's defensive organisation. A goalkeeper does much more than stop shots. He communicates with defenders, organises the defensive line, makes decisions on crosses and contributes to playing out from the back. Replacing a goalkeeper without an injury, suspension or clearly defined rotation policy can disrupt established defensive relationships.

Keeping an experienced goalkeeper such as Mendy out of the team raises legitimate questions. Was the decision based on fitness, performance or a specific tactical plan? Until the club or manager provides an explanation, it would be premature to describe the decision as favouritism or proof that Pusic has lost authority in the dressing room. Nevertheless, questions about selection consistency are understandable.

Galeno presents a different case. His pace and ability to operate in wide areas can provide an attacking side with additional options. A quick winger can stretch defensive lines and create space, particularly against opponents expected to leave room behind their full-backs. If Galeno was fully fit but excluded for tactical reasons, Pusic must explain why another option was considered more suitable for the role.

The significance of these cases extends beyond individual players. In a squad containing prominent names, selection clarity is essential to maintaining dressing-room trust. Players need to understand that decisions are based on performance, fitness and tactical requirements. Unexplained choices can appear to represent favouritism even when legitimate technical reasons exist.

Sacking the manager is easy; solving the crisis is harder

The biggest institutional question facing Al-Ahli concerns Pusic's future. Al-Shunaif's comments went beyond criticism of individual decisions and directly challenged the manager's coaching ability and suitability for the position. When a prominent television platform questions a manager's legitimacy, the pressure quickly moves from the pitch to the boardroom.

Even so, dismissing a coach on the basis of two matches carries considerable risk. The 6-1 defeat was unquestionably serious, but a 0-0 draw is not sufficient evidence of poor performance on its own. Al-Ahli's shot volume, shots on target, entries into the opposition penalty area and the chances conceded all need to be examined. Without those figures, the underlying quality of the performances remains uncertain.

There is also a financial dimension to a potential dismissal. Terminating an existing contract early can require compensation covering the remaining salary or a negotiated settlement. The club would then face additional expenditure on a new manager and coaching staff. In effect, Al-Ahli could end up paying for two technical teams during the same season.

The available analysis contains no details about Pusic's contract, salary, compensation terms or potential termination clauses. It is therefore impossible to estimate the financial cost of removing him. What is clear, however, is that appointing a new manager would not automatically resolve the team's structural problems. If selection uncertainty, creative dependence and defensive coordination remain unresolved, the impact of a managerial change could be limited.

Expectations in the Saudi Pro League

Al-Ahli competes in a league where the financial resources and sporting ambitions of leading clubs have increased significantly. Competition with Al-Hilal, Al-Nassr, Al-Ittihad and Al-Qadsiah naturally creates substantial expectations. Managers are expected to deliver immediate results, even though new signings need time to develop an understanding of their teammates and the tactical system.

The Al-Sadd fixture also highlights Al-Ahli's continental commitments alongside domestic competition. Rotation can be necessary for teams competing on multiple fronts. Travel, recovery periods and the time available between matches all influence selection decisions. Leaving a player out does not automatically indicate a tactical disagreement or disciplinary problem.

This is where the difference between media criticism and actual team management becomes important. Supporters see the starting eleven, but managers must also consider fitness, training performances, recovery and the upcoming fixture calendar. At the same time, those responsibilities make it necessary for managers to explain their decisions.

The central contradiction: Al-Ahli have options, but their use remains controversial

An interesting feature of the current situation is that the debate revolves around players viewed as available alternatives. Mendy and Galeno have reportedly produced positive performances, while Pusic's dependence on Bondarenko has been questioned. This suggests that the issue may not simply be a shortage of quality or talent. The more important question is how the club converts its resources into a coherent collective system.

A strong team is defined not only by its starting eleven but also by its ability to use different options effectively in different situations. If neutralising Bondarenko stops the entire attack, another creative route must be developed. If Mendy's absence disrupts defensive coordination, the goalkeeper selection policy needs greater clarity. If Galeno is excluded, the tactical advantages of the alternative player must be explained.

One aspect of Al-Shunaif's criticism should not be dismissed as merely a campaign against the manager: balancing authority and accountability in a star-heavy squad is difficult. However, the argument becomes substantially stronger when supported by match footage, selection records and performance data. Simply accusing a coach of depending on one player is insufficient.

The next test: the manner of the response matters more than the result

Al-Ahli's next challenge is not merely to win but to establish a recognisable playing identity. Pusic must demonstrate that his team can improve its defensive organisation after a 6-1 defeat and introduce greater attacking variety after a goalless draw. Clarity over Bondarenko's role, Mendy's position and Galeno's involvement will be important indicators.

What changes on the pitch in the next match will matter more than assurances delivered at a press conference. Can the team progress through more than one creative route? Can the defence maintain its shape under pressure? Are selection decisions consistently connected to tactical requirements?

Al-Ahli supporters should not focus exclusively on the next major victory. They should watch how the team responds when circumstances become difficult. A manager's real examination is revealed through the team's reaction after a setback and its ability to sustain improvement over subsequent matches.