Al-Ahli Saudi's Patience Test: When the Board Bets on a Coach Who Hasn't Had Time to Breathe

That night in Cairo, the final whistle left Al-Ahli Saudi's players standing frozen on the pitch like statues. The 2-1 scoreline against South Africa's Sundowns in the FIFA Intercontinental Cup went far beyond the meaning of an ordinary defeat. It was the moment when all the frustration simmering for weeks erupted into a public crisis. Across Saudi football forums, fans united in pointing their fury at head coach Marino Pusic, demanding the board sack him immediately. But the remarkable thing was not the familiar outburst of rage. The remarkable thing was the board's reaction: they firmly kept him, even declaring they want to give the Dutch coach even greater support. The question observers are asking now is not whether Pusic deserves to be sacked, but whether that patience represents strategic vision or a reckless gamble. Al-Ahli Saudi is a club with a special status in the Saudi Pro League. They are one of the 'big four' of Saudi football, alongside Al-Hilal, Al-Nassr and Al-Ittihad. Their fans are accustomed to competing for titles, accustomed to seeing the club in the upper reaches of the table. That is why three consecutive league defeats at the start of the season represent a cultural shock in the truest sense. But the most important context many articles are missing is the timing of Pusic's appointment. He had only days before the season kicked off to take charge of the team. No pre-season, no time to implement any coaching methods, no opportunity to assess the entire squad and build relationships with key players. Even the most seasoned coach needs at least six to eight weeks to communicate his philosophy to a new group. Pusic walked into Al-Ahli's dressing room when everything had already been arranged by his predecessor, with a squad built for a tactical system he had no part in designing. It's like asking an architect to complete a building whose foundations were laid by someone else according to a completely different blueprint. The Sundowns defeat should therefore be viewed in fuller context. Sundowns are a formidable opponent. They are CAF Champions League winners, a well-organized group with extensive international experience. A 2-1 loss to such an opponent in an intercontinental cup competition, however disappointing, is not compelling evidence of Pusic's coaching incompetence. The real story here is not Pusic. The real story lies in Al-Ahli's coaching appointment process, a process that was already showing signs of dysfunction before the season began. Appointing a coach just days before the league starts reflects an uncomfortable reality: either the board left the coaching seat vacant too long, or they dismissed the predecessor without a clear succession plan. Both scenarios point to organizational unprofessionalism. And the irony is that the very people who created this difficult situation are the ones being praised for their patience with Pusic. The numbers paint an unflattering picture. Three league defeats. One elimination from the FIFA Intercontinental Cup. In total, the team has gone through at least four competitive matches under Pusic without any significant positive result. But four matches is too small a sample to judge any coach's ability. In modern football history, there are countless examples of coaches who started poorly yet built successful teams. Conversely, there are also many coaches who started impressively before quickly collapsing when faced with real challenges. I have witnessed too many similar cases to draw hasty conclusions based on four matches. Following matches across the Middle East for many years, I have noticed a recurring pattern: early coach dismissals are usually driven by media pressure and fan impatience rather than objective technical assessment. Club boards in this region are especially prone to falling into that trap, because the football culture here prioritizes immediate results over long-term development processes. Fans want victories right away, and they rarely accept explanations about transition periods, no matter how reasonable those explanations are. A coach only needs a few consecutive defeats to be pushed into a dangerous position, regardless of the objective factors working against him. What makes Al-Ahli's case special is that the board has gone against that trend. They publicly stated they have no intention of sacking Pusic and even want to give him greater backing. This is a bold decision, but it is also fraught with risk. The first risk is the binary nature of this decision. By publicly committing to Pusic, the board has placed itself in a position with no honorable exit. If results improve, they are visionary strategists. If results continue to deteriorate, they will be seen as stubborn defenders of a weak coach, harming the club's interests. There is no middle ground for such a public statement. Patience is only considered correct when it leads to good results; otherwise, it is branded as obstinate conservatism. Numbers never lie, and if results do not improve within the next five to ten matches, every promise will become meaningless decoration. The second risk lies in the dressing room. Any coach needs the support of key players to maintain discipline and fighting spirit. When fans publicly demand the coach's dismissal, players may begin to question his authority and mandate. If Al-Ahli's core players do not truly stand behind Pusic, then the board's patience is merely a temporary sedative for a disease festering deeper within. However, the arguments of those demanding Pusic's immediate dismissal deserve serious consideration. They are right to point out that Al-Ahli Saudi is not a small club needing time to develop. With strong financial resources from Saudi's Public Investment Fund, this club has every right to demand higher standards. In an increasingly competitive league featuring world-class stars, delaying corrective action could cost the team any chance of competing for the title from the early stages. But this argument overlooks a crucial detail: Al-Ahli put themselves in this difficult position through their own rushed appointment process. When you appoint a coach just days before the season begins, you cannot expect instant results. Blaming Pusic entirely is a way for the board to evade responsibility for creating an impossible situation from the start. Three years after the signing ceremony, the secret clause still lies in the financial basement, and just like that, the wrong decisions from the start of the season will continue to haunt the club no matter who sits in the coaching seat. The real question Al-Ahli Saudi needs to answer is not whether Pusic deserves to be sacked. The right question is: how did a club of this stature end up having to appoint a coach just days before the season started? If the board can answer that question honestly, they will find the true root of the problem. If not, they will continue repeating the cycle of rushed appointments, failure, dismissal, and reappointment—a loop that Middle Eastern football has witnessed far too many times over the past decade. Patience with Pusic could be a correct step, but it only truly matters if accompanied by a serious review of how the club operates at the governance level. After all, no matter how talented a coach is, he cannot save a system that operates without discipline. And Al-Ahli's issue now is no longer about Pusic's fate, but whether they dare to confront their own mistakes. That is a much harder problem than simply replacing a coach.