Ireland vs Afghanistan big preview - should these games take place?

The only public attention given to this series focuses on the controversial decision to host Afghanistan despite the well-documented human rights abuses in that country

Paul Stirling in action. 📸: Cricket Ireland

The final home international series is about to take place, only you would struggle to realise that if existing outside the cricket bubble.

Ireland’s last (male) home engagement was paired with significant Sooryavanshi fanfare. Afghanistan, sadly, have no similar child wonder to turn the heads of rubberneckers (cue jokes about one country lying about players’ ages).

The only real build-up in the Irish press focuses instead on the off-field controversy. Should Ireland play these games or boycott a country that treats women abhorrently? This debate is late, but necessary. Ireland have played Afghanistan twice since the Taliban took control of the country, hosting them in 2022 and travelling to the UAE in 2024. But no one said a word about the elephant in the room until Ger Siggins’ column in the Mail earlier this year.

In response, Cricket Ireland said they have been debating this issue for over a year and subsequently came out with their reasoning behind going ahead with the games (you can make your own mind up about how strong these debates were, or if they would have been publicly aired if it were not for Siggins’ piece of excellent journalism).

The Belfast Telegraph and BBC have both written recent articles exploring the issue. One Northern Irish MLA, Cara Hunter of the SDLP, has written to CI expressing her concern.

If this was a bigger sport, we know what the fanfare would be. We only need to look at the FAI’s battle with the football public over the decision to play Israel. But it’s cricket. The wider public only really cares when Ireland beat England or the opposition picks a child. The reaction was always going to be minimal, but it is there nonetheless.

We will get into the cricketing talking points later on (keep scrolling if that’s what you’re here for). But it’s important to tease out the implications of CI’s decision to host Afghanistan despite the country’s treatment of women.

Where you stand on this issue depends on plenty of factors. Irish cricket diehards are in the beggars can’t be choosers camp. Ireland play so little cricket that it would be too large an act of self-harm to cancel what little cricket there is for non-cricketing reasons.

The Venn diagram overlap between these people and those who don’t believe in sporting boycotts is probably significant. The brutal truth is that the Taliban won’t give a toss about little old Ireland making a human rights statement (note that it is not an issue of politics, which can be debated, but human rights which should be absolute). Ultimately, if cricket is to shun Afghanistan, that decision should be made at ICC level. Even if bigger countries such as England and Australia have opted to not play them in bilaterals.

But should pragmatism win the day? Are some things not more important?

Afghanistan does not let women play sport. Hence the exiled women’s refugee team, who managed to flee the country, are based largely in Australia. The issues are much deeper than that, though. Education has largely disappeared for women. There are reports of forced marriage involving children. Public beatings. We could go on.

How can a team representing a country such as this be allowed to compete?

Cricket Ireland’s argument can more or less be trimmed down to the following points:

• Cricket Ireland, in line with the ICC and International Olympic Council, does not believe in punishing athletes for the sins of their government.

• CI has been active in calling for support for the exiled Afghan women’s refugee team at ICC level. CEO Sarah Keane was recently appointed to a task force charged with supporting this group of women.

• CI will use this series as an opportunity to highlight the plight of the displaced Afghan women’s team and call for greater support.

• As an ICC full member, CI has reciprocal hosting arrangements with a number of countries, including Afghanistan. CI is ‘obliged’ (their word) to host this tour.

Ultimately, by picking through these arguments, my own personal belief is that CI have not actually come out with the main reason why they’re playing these games, mainly that they’re under too much political pressure from cricketing people at home to supply games for their men’s team.

Starting in order, the point about avoiding punishing athletes for the actions of their government is disingenuous at best, a red herring at worst. Saying, ‘the ICC and IOC are doing it’ calls to mind the point made by your mother as a child about following your best friend if they were to jump off a cliff.

Equally, the sporting organisation that was previously leading the way for advancing this line of thought - but conveniently not mentioned above - was FIFA, led by Gianni Infantino, when flirting with the idea of allowing Russia back into competitive football. Infantino has since been caught up in other pursuits. Is his example really one we want to follow?

Besides, even if the Olympic movement is thinking of allowing countries such as Russia back in, there are individual sports that remain steadfast. Ice Hockey recently confirmed that Russia will not be allowed to compete at their World Championship in 2027.

Points two and three deal with the support given to the Afghan refugee team. This is absolutely the right thing to do, but the argument against this logic would be that it should not be done in response to hosting a problematic series with the men. It should simply be done in its own right. CI I’m sure would argue that they were always going to be vocal in this regard, but it’s difficult to avoid the slightly cynical view that their attention has been sharpened by the flak this men’s series has brought.

It also should be said that the bigger issue shouldn’t really be the refugee team that escaped the country. While they can’t play international cricket, they are at least playing some sort of sport and living in a country that grants them basic human rights. The problem is what befalls the millions of women who did not get out, those who are subjected to a lack of education and violence.

CI can’t do anything about that in reality. But they can at least be seen to be taking a stand. Performative? Maybe. But it avoids the allegation of ticking the box of supporting the women so you can get away with playing the men. Of course, leadership deserves some benefit of the doubt that their support for the refugee team goes beyond a box ticking exercise - Keane especially given it’s her first year in the job.

What in reality can CI do to sufficiently highlight the plight of women while playing Afghanistan’s men? Will Keane march her ACB equivalent onto the square at Bready and publicly admonish him? Unlikely. Not playing the games would have been a bigger statement.

The last point, about reciprocal hosting and obligation, moves away from human rights and onto sports governance. If this isn’t your buzz, feel free to scroll down to the next section which deals with actual cricket.

Cara Hunter, a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, recently wrote to CI expressing concern for this series. She asked them if they were willing to reconsider hosting these games.

In response, CI’s chair, Brian MacNeice, more or less said the organisation’s hands were tied. “Cricket Ireland is a Full Member of the ICC and has obligations and responsibilities that relate to holding this status,” he said. “Reciprocity is a key feature, and we are obliged to host Afghanistan in this series as part of a previous reciprocal deal regarding hosting of games.”

This statement is seemingly at odds with what CEO Keane said earlier this year in her first media roundtable since joining the organisation. The whole tenor of that conversation, when discussing Afghanistan, was that this was a decision that Cricket Ireland made, not one that was forced upon them. Therefore they are going to own it. Keane was praised afterwards for her forthright nature when dealing with a difficult topic.

“I’m not going to pawn you off by saying that there’s financial reasons and there’s legal reasons [that force CI into hosting],” she said at the time. “There aren’t.”

Here we have one CI figure saying they are making this decision freely, another suggesting they are not (MacNeice did outline other reasons behind avoiding a boycott, touching on the bullets above). This leads to an uncomfortable situation where, either the new CEO was given bad information, or incorrect statements are being made to elected officials. Given Stormont just gave CI around £7m for cricket facilities, it’s an iffy look at best.

When asked about this congruence, CI disputed that the two statements are at odds. “Regarding the organisation of bilateral international cricket, the most common approach between teams is a ‘reciprocal’ approach,” said a spokesman. “This approach typically involves the home team picking up most of the costs of getting the opponent to the host country and covering the costs of accommodation and other sundry costs involved in playing the matches.

“The away side will then return the favour and host the home side later in the cycle on the same basis.

“Mr MacNeice is correct in stating we have a reciprocal responsibility to host Afghanistan from a previous series that they hosted in the UAE in 2024.

“Similarly, Ms Keane stated there were no “financial or legal” reasons, which is also correct. Bilateral arrangements are not “contractual” or “legal” arrangements, but good faith agreements where two teams look for a mutually beneficial way to afford/account for bilateral cricket.

“For a Full Member to renege on a reciprocal agreement is not a legal or financial issue, it is more a reputation and confidence matter. Other Full or Associate Members would likely hesitate to agree to play you if you have a reputation for not fulfilling agreements. In addition, the country who hosted the original series may likely come seeking reimbursement of costs from the other team.”

Cricket Ireland was also asked to point out if there are any ICC written doctrines that demand this process of reciprocity. They did not do so.

It’s clear as mud. According to CI, reciprocity is not a contractual or legal arrangement yet countries that host you can come calling for reimbursement if you fail to sufficiently host them in turn. Did Afghanistan ask for cash last year when that tour was cancelled? What of Bangladesh this year? Presumably, the answer is no.

For what it’s worth, CI also disputes the term “cancelled” in regard to these series, saying they are instead postponed. The spokesman said that this Afghanistan series is to make up for last year’s series that did not take place. Yet both series were set in stone on the FTP long before CI made the decision not to play last year due to finances.

If it reads as if CI has tied themselves in knots with different definitions of terms like reciprocity and obligation, it’s because that’s exactly what happened. This saga has exposed international cricket for what it is, an old boys club where teams agree to play each other based on gentlemen’s agreements around mutual back scratching. If only there was a way to codify and mandate competition in the form of Super Leagues and World Test Championships…

CI can argue the semantics of what their Chair and CEO said until the cows come home. The tone of their respective statements are very different. That is not ideal, and it detracts from their previous position of acknowledging their abhorrence while gritting their teeth.

Reciprocal obligation is supposedly binding yet it only comes into the conversation when it suits CI. Given Afghanistan hosted Ireland in 2024, why was this reciprocity not obliged for last year’s cancelled tour? What of this year’s Bangladesh visit - which CI says is in the works for being rescheduled? Why only now does reciprocity lead to compulsion?

It’s a mess. One that it should be said is not entirely CI’s making. But they have nevertheless done a less than stellar job at communicating an argument that was always doomed to have significant holes.

Ultimately, I would be inclined to believe (and this is pure opinion, rather than sourced information), that CI felt they had no choice in this matter. They were due to host Bangladesh and Afghanistan this summer, the original plan being to have Bangladesh now and push Afghanistan to the UAE in October. But Bangladesh are playing a Test series in Australia as this Afghanistan ODI series finishes up. I suspect Bangladesh said ‘thanks, but no thanks’ to these dates from CI, choosing a better dance partner in Darwin.

That left CI tangoing with Afghanistan or by themselves. After the chair sat down with male players last year, apologised to them for a paltry fixture list and promised better, could the organisation then say ‘sorry lads, you’ve only got three games this summer because of moral reasons?’

Plenty would answer in the affirmative to that question, but I find it hard to believe any of those individuals are in positions of power within a cricketing body that has endured years of criticism for failing to play enough cricket.

On the pitch - what to watch

Wilson watch

The Gary Wilson era begins, the former Ireland wicketkeeper taking over as head coach from Heinrich Malan. So far, before a ball has been bowled, the omens have been good. When the squad was selected, Wilson picked up the phone and explained each of his debated selections on the record (read here). Agree or disagree with the points, that is a welcome level of openness.

Players have also been impressed with his approach. At a recent meeting, it was made abundantly clear what the balance of the side would be, everyone’s role within that and what those outside the squad needed to do to usurp those on the inside.

Again, some disagreed with the balance of the side that we are soon going to see, but players nonetheless respect honestly and clarity. Those qualities don’t guarantee results, but it looks like that if players don’t perform, they can’t blame a lack of communication of what is sought from them.

Top three

In List A cricket this summer, Ireland’s top three of Paul Stirling, Andrew Balbirnie and Cade Carmichael have scored 211 runs between them. Stephen Doheny, not in this squad despite his last international innings bringing a half-century vs New Zealand, has almost double that number of recent List A runs (409). Chris de Freitas (266) has also outscored the Irish top three, as has Tim Tector (251).

There are caveats to this. Stirling only has one List A appearance to his name this summer and he scored 61. Balbirnie also missed matches due to a shoulder injury and he is coming into this series off the back of a career first professional T20 hundred. Ireland have not picked openers out of form. These two also have a long track record of international success.

The bigger call, seemingly, was Carmichael, a man who has played plenty of cricket recently but is yet to pass 50 in a senior match this summer. He also only has two ODI innings to his name. Regardless, after a stellar 2025, including an impressive 48 in his second international, Ireland have backed the man in possession of the number three slot in 50-over cricket.

It is a big call. Implicitly, the message to players who have more runs to their name is that Carmichael is seen as a better fit for international cricket. Head coach Wilson recently explained what he likes about the Instonians batter.

Carmichael is undoubtedly a talented cricketer and is likely to have a long international career. That doesn’t make it any less significant a statement to back him over someone who has put together as dominant a run as Doheny - albeit given the discrepancy in talent across the three intepro sides, runs while playing for the Lightning may not have the same value as those coming against the Leinster attack.

Given the form of those waiting in the wings, there is pressure on Carmichael - if not the top three as a whole - to deliver.

Big name to miss out?

Looking at the pre-series comments of Wilson, Ireland look likely to play Gavin Hoey in their XI. He said they were ‘desperate’ to get him in the team as an attacking leg-spinner.

So that leaves a big selection call. Reading the tea leaves, the pre-series selection prediction is that Andy McBrine could miss out.

In a press conference on Tuesday, Wilson made clear that they will favour picking an extra batting all-rounder in the XI over five out and out bowlers. Combined with his previous comments on Hoey, that leaves Ireland looking at an attack of Hoey, Adair, Moondra and one of McDonough or McCarthy.

Part of the reason is they believe seam bowling, specifically reverse swing, will come into the game more. After 35 overs, they go from using two balls to just one. Meaning the ball used at the end will be older and more likely to be reverse. That suits seamers, not an off-spinner.

Speaking of seamers, Boyd Rankin has been called up as Ireland’s fast bowling coach for this series after Ryan Eagleson suffered a compound fracture playing club cricket recently. Eagleson had surgery last week.

Predicted Ireland XI: Stirling (c), Balbirnie, Carmichael, Tector, Campher, Tucker, Dockrell, Adair, Hoey, Moondra, McDonough/McCarthy.

Middle overs woes

For a long, long time, in both white ball formats, Ireland have struggled when bowling in the middle overs. Batters look to consolidate while progressing through the gears, building platforms for late-inning assaults. Given Ireland’s inability to consistently take wickets in that middle period, along with their lack of top end death bowling, they’ve been left exposed. Remember what the West Indies did to them in Clontarf last year?

The reason why Ireland struggle? They have neither top end pace nor elite spin, traits that are required to take wickets on a flat deck with a soft white ball.

With this squad selection, they’re trying to find a way around that problem. The reason why they are ‘desperate’ to play Hoey is they believe he is their best option to take wickets when batters are looking to consolidate rather than be overly aggressive.

Ditto Messrs McDonough and McCarthy. Both players have good short balls, we saw McCarthy’s in action when he hit a number of Windies batters the last time Ireland played 50-over cricket. Granted, this didn’t lead to the required wickets that would slow down late onslaughts.

McDonough has been picked because they like the use of his short ball. It’s the old Liam Plunkett role from England’s 2019 World Cup. Bowl the ball halfway down and see if you can cause a few problems.

Is Byron McDonough the second coming of Plunkett? Probably not. Can Hoey do a good Adil Rashid impersonation? Maybe…

Ireland need an improvement of some sort in this area to be competitive. Otherwise their lack of high class death bowling - Adair aside - will continue to be exposed.