Jens Wissing hits back at Ange Postecoglou: Al-Ittihad were more than just the first 15 minutes

At Al-Ahli stadium, just thirty-seven seconds after the kickoff whistle, a through ball tore through Al-Nassr's defense like a piece of scrap paper. Romain Faivre — a name many had doubted when he left Brest for Jeddah — faced the goalkeeper. He shot. The ball hit the post and bounced back. But before tragedy could turn into disappointment, the ball deflected off Musab Al-Juwayr's leg, into the blind spot of goalkeeper Bento. 1-0 for Al-Ittihad, the fourth minute. No one expected that this fortuitous moment would open a match that people would discuss for many days to come — not because of the goal, but because of the post-match statements that redrew the battlefield map in an unexpected way. Al-Ittihad secured a 2-1 victory over Al-Nassr in the fifth round of the Roshn Saudi Pro League. The nickname "The Dean" — which Saudi football fans have given to Al-Ittihad — was once again etched into history through a thrilling derby. But what elevated this match beyond an ordinary showdown lay in the post-match exchange, where two coaches — a German and an Australian — measured the length of truth in completely opposite ways. Ange Postecoglou, the Australian manager of Al-Nassr, walked into the press conference with the face of someone who had just been robbed of something precious. He claimed that Al-Ittihad only truly made an impact in the first fifteen minutes, that his side was the better team and created more dangerous chances afterward. To me, someone who has followed European football for over three decades, this sounded like a familiar tune: the loser always tries to shrink the opponent's victory to widen their own wound. But what matters is Jens Wissing's reaction. The German coach was neither agitated nor waving his arms nor putting on airs. He simply asked back — in a calm but sharp tone like a blade — "I want to be sure of that first. Everyone saw what we did, and we were not clinical in the counter-attacks we created, and what we did on the pitch everyone can see." That answer, to me, was not merely the politeness of a defeated man feigning composure. It was the statement of a tactician who had read the match down to each player's every breath. To understand this debate, we must return to the pitch — the only place where truth needs no commentator's confirmation. Al-Ittihad started the match with a completely different posture compared to their loss against Al-Qadsiah. They did not press high recklessly like men trying to prove something through sweat and tears. Instead, they organized a deep defensive system with five defenders in two lines, ready to transition the moment the ball was won back. Wissing explained: "We tried to organize the team through the substitutions, and we played with five defenders to reduce the crosses." This was not the tactics of a team sitting back or playing passive defense. This was the tactics of a team understanding that the opponent would push hard, and they were prepared to turn that pressure into a weapon. And they did. Al-Ittihad's second goal — a textbook counter-attack — clearly showed the philosophy Wissing is building. When Al-Nassr pushed high searching for an equalizer, the space behind their midfield became vast as a bottomless desert. Al-Ittihad did not need many players to exploit that desert. They only needed one accurate pass and two legs willing to run. But the truth — the truth Wissing alluded to in the press conference — has two sides. Al-Nassr, under Postecoglou, truly created dangerous chances in the second half. Statistics show that the Australian's team had superior possession control in the period from the 45th to the 75th minute. They pressed, they crossed, they pressured Al-Ittihad's goal like a pack of wolves surrounding an exhausted deer. Al-Nassr's 1-2 equalizer came late in the first half, a set-piece situation in the penalty area that somewhat reflected this team's true quality. Al-Nassr's shot count in the second half was nearly three times that of Al-Ittihad. That is a fact no one, not even Wissing, can deny. But here lies the question that commentators often dodge: is creating many chances but failing to convert them into goals a sign of a "better" team, or is it a sign of a tactical system backfiring? Postecoglou said Al-Nassr were the better team and created more chances. But football is not a statistics class. Goals are not credited by shot count, but by how many times the ball ended up in the net. And in this match, Al-Ittihad had the ball in the net twice, while Al-Nassr only once. Wissing, in his statement, touched on a truth many overlook: "In the first 35 minutes, we played a wonderful match, we scored two goals and we could have scored more than that." This is not boasting. This is a reminder that Al-Ittihad did not only have fifteen minutes. They had 35 minutes — and in those 35 minutes, they accomplished more than an entire second half full of opportunities for their opponent. The development Wissing emphasized — "Today's match is different from the match against Al-Qadsiah. Since that match we have developed a great deal tactically and mentally, and what I saw in terms of tactics and spirit and what we applied on the pitch was something wonderful" — reflects a journey that anyone following Al-Ittihad from the season's start can recognize. The loss to Al-Qadsiah was not just a negative result on the standings. It was a painful lesson about how a team can collapse when tactics fail to keep pace with match reality. Wissing sat down, rewatched every minute, every pass, every movement decision, and rebuilt the system from the ashes of that defeat. The scar is not ugly, it is the map of matches gone by. But here, I want to offer a different perspective — one many may disagree with, but I believe needs to be said. Postecoglou was not wrong to say Al-Nassr created many chances. He was also not wrong to notice the difference in game state between the first and second halves. But the error lies in how he framed the narrative: that only the first fifteen minutes belonged to Al-Ittihad, and the rest belonged to Al-Nassr. This is the storytelling style I have seen too many times in my career. A losing coach always finds ways to shrink the opponent's victory by amplifying the phase they felt dominated. But football does not operate on emotions. It operates on results. And the result was Al-Ittihad won 2-1. One tactical blind spot I noticed in Postecoglou's assessment: he evaluated the game state based on crossing frequency and pressure volume, but overlooked the quality of counter-attacks Al-Ittihad created. A team can dominate 70% of possession but still lose if the opponent turns the remaining 30% into fatal stabs. Al-Nassr controlled, but Al-Ittihad finished. The difference between the two philosophies lies here: Postecoglou builds a system based on occupying space and creating chance quantity. Wissing builds a system based on waiting for the right moment and converting it into goals. One philosophy requires patience and precision. The other requires control and dominance. Both have value. But in this match, only one philosophy was celebrated with victory. Throughout the press conference, Wissing never attacked Postecoglou personally. He did not say Al-Nassr played poorly, did not say their tactics were wrong, did not say his team deserved to win more. He only said one thing: "Everyone saw what we did." This is the attitude of a tactician who does not need to prove anything through words, because the pitch has spoken for him. But this is also when I want to look further. This derby was not just a confrontation between two clubs or two coaches. It is a microcosm of the battle unfolding in Saudi Arabian football — the battle between clubs trying to build their own identity in an era where money is redefining the boundaries of success. Al-Ittihad, with Wissing, are showing that victory does not only come from buying the most expensive stars. It comes from building a system that can harness each individual's strength within a cohesive whole. Romain Faivre, though not scoring directly in the opening goal, was involved in that play with a pass full of vision. That is the product of a system gradually perfecting itself. Al-Nassr, with Postecoglou, continue pursuing the possession-based philosophy he has built throughout his career. But in football, philosophy cannot stand alone. It needs to be supported by people capable of executing it at the highest intensity, in the most decisive moments. Cristiano Ronaldo, Al-Nassr's biggest star, could not display his best form in this match. He was tightly marked by Al-Ittihad's five-man defense, and the aerial duels he usually wins easily in other leagues became incredibly difficult against an opponent who had prepared meticulously. This is when I recall a lesson 2026 taught me: in football, preparation always defeats genius. A well-organized system can compensate for the absence of stars. A chaotic system can destroy even the brightest stars. Wissing seems to understand this. Postecoglou, perhaps, is still on the learning path. The derby ended, but the debate has only begun. And in football, the best debate is not the one on newspapers or in press conferences. It is the one decided by time — by the matches ahead, the results ahead, and the victories ahead. Al-Ittihad have secured three valuable points. They have shown that fifteen minutes, thirty-five minutes, or ninety minutes do not matter. What matters is that when the final whistle blows, you can count how many goals are in your pocket. As for Al-Nassr and Postecoglou, they will have to return to training, review the footage, and ask themselves what is truly preventing them from winning — whether it is fifteen minutes or ninety minutes. The scar is not ugly. But to let it become a map guiding future matches, one must dare to look directly at it. Wissing has done that. What about Postecoglou? The answer will come in the upcoming rounds of the Roshn Saudi Pro League.