After our opening match of the ongoing Africa Cup of Nations in Morocco, I shared brief observations on some of our players based solely on what I saw in the game against Tanzania. When it came to Zaidu Sanusi, I intentionally kept my comment short and wrote, “I am not his fan.” That was not an admission of bias, but a conscious effort to avoid turning football discussion into needless controversy.
Unfortunately, the very thing I tried to avoid surfaced in the comment section. Someone quickly framed my comment as tribalism and dragged ethnicity into what was purely a football conversation. That accusation was disappointing, especially because until that moment, I had never given any thought to Zaidu’s state of origin. My observation had nothing to do with where he comes from and everything to do with what he did, or failed to do, on the pitch.
This is precisely why this piece is necessary. Nigerian football suffers when honest performance analysis is reduced to ethnic suspicion. Critiquing a player is not tribalism. Silence in the face of obvious weaknesses helps no one. What follows is a football-based analysis, not sentiment and not identity politics.
Zaidu Sanusi is clearly struggling, and the warning signs are no longer subtle. His recurring weak passes, poor decision-making under pressure, and limited contribution in buildup play have become structural problems for the team. At this level, such flaws not only affect an individual, but they also expose the entire defensive unit.
If benching him is considered impossible for whatever internal reason, then the responsibility shifts squarely to the coaching crew to manage the risk. Football management is not only about selection. It is also about damage control. Persisting with a player whose weaknesses repeatedly disrupt team balance is a gamble that can cost matches and eventually cost jobs.
ALSO READ: Governor Alia right about God’s presence in APC, but…
At the moment, Zaidu’s most reliable contribution remains his tackling. Beyond that, his positional awareness, composure in possession, and judgment in advanced areas require urgent technical and tactical intervention. One pragmatic solution would be a structural adjustment on the left side. Deploying a second left-sided outlet, such as a disciplined winger or left-sided midfielder, could help absorb pressure when his passing breaks down or when indecision sets in. That is not an attack on the player. That is coaching.
What cannot continue is allowing one player’s limitations to put the entire team in ransom. Football is unforgiving. Opponents identify weaknesses quickly and exploit them repeatedly. Zaidu’s flank has become an obvious target, and anyone who watched the match closely will understand this concern. It is not imagined, exaggerated, or emotional.
This conversation, however, must be handled with maturity. Nigerian football has a long history of being distracted by perceptions of favoritism, ethnic balancing, or non-football considerations in team selection. Whether those factors are real or merely perceived is secondary. What matters is that continued selection without visible tactical correction fuels speculation and shifts focus away from performance.
The Super Eagles cannot afford sentiment or silence. Either Zaidu is supported within a system that protects his weaknesses, or genuine competition must be allowed to do its job. Anything else is unfair to the player, unfair to his teammates, and unfair to a football nation like Nigeria.
