we really have to think about expansion of this game into other countries such as IRELAND,scotland,netherland , ODI or test format can never be successful this way
just going to address this point a bit because I think that its incredibly ignorant about Associate cricket.
I dunno about the Netherlands; but in Ireland and Scotland Test cricket has the potential to be very successful - admittedly not as quickly as the shorter forms of the game would, but in the long run it could be more successful than either. Its not like Test cricket is the unknown here that it is in many other places, its covered more in the press than any other form of the game, mostly because that's what the English press care about and most Cricket fans in Ireland and Scotland generally follow English cricket to some extent. If you asked people to describe what their image of a cricket game was, it'd more resemble a Test Match than any limited overs form of the game. Also, here at least, League Cricket is mostly 50 over cricket; 20/20, at least where I am, is limited to Wednesday night games where the best players often can't play - its possibly different at a more elite level, but that's really only just developing in Scotland. If you were to abolish all that and replace in with T20 stuff; then you'd weaken Associate cricket because they'd all focus on the short form and that'd hurt the quality of four day Cricket making it less likely that smaller nations could compete at "Test" level.
From the perspective of the Associate cricket fan: I think that ODI cricket needs to be retained within a general restructuring of the way that Cricket works. There is an argument to the "too many useless bilateral ODIs!!!" thing; but firstly they wouldn't play them if it wasn't making someone money, and I'd also argue that the large amount of bilateral games with no real purpose is a wider problem across Cricket. The best bit about Associate cricket is that 99% of games are within the structure of the WCL, Intercontinental Cup or some other ICC or regional tournament - meaning that every game matters a lot because they could lead to you getting relegated a division or not getting promoted or something else: and because of the relatively lengthy timescales of the competition that can mean a significant amount: being less likely to get to the qualifying tournaments for the next World T20 or World Cup (although the latter has been gimped with the new 10 team format: it basically looks like its going to be the WCL Championship teams plus unless something shocking happens Zimbabwe and one of the West Indies, Bangladesh or Pakistan), losing support funding from the ICC or just general pride. You don't generally have that in the wider international game outside of the big Test series (the Ashes, India/Pakistan, possibly Australia/NZ recently because of both being very good recently, I can't think of any others at the moment) and major ICC tournaments - the closest that we had was the West Indies trying to win that ODI series to qualify for next years Champions Trophy but that was kinda ruined by Pakistan cancelling their ODI series against Zimbabwe, mostly because even if they'd won every game they'd have lost ranking points and frankly that's just dumb.
I'd personally like to see more regular regional tournaments that use the ODI format; you have the Asia Cup, you could organise something in Europe with England, Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands and some of the next level Associate teams (Denmark and the Channel Islands), there are lots of African WCL teams, Australasia would be hard, but could also include PNG and Vanuatu, and the Americas would probably be the weakest division, but maybe a four-team thing with Canada, the USA (if they ever get their act together) and Bermuda might work. I'd argue that the triangular or quadrangular tournament is also something that would be good: you'd involve more teams, games that actually have a bit of meaning, and if you included Associate teams then you could give them the games that they really need without "hurting" the bigger nations. Add into this more open ICC competitions - a sixteen team ODI World Cup, a 20 or 24 team World T20 and perhaps something also for Test cricket - with open qualification systems (and also an abolition of the idea of "status"
) and I think that you begin to get something that would allow Cricket to flourish and expand without throwing away one of the more interesting forms of the game. That will take a lot of time to get to though; and until then I think that ditching ODIs entirely would do a lot more to harm the game than help it grow.
But cricket wont be able to make new fans with formats such as test or ODI.
I'm a Scottish fan of Cricket who would have been consider a "new fan" ten years ago - I got into the game not because of T20 stuff but because of the 2005 Ashes. Its inaccurate to suggest that T20 is the only way of growing the game in developing markets: while T20 will be the main form of the game that gets fan traction, at the grassroots level you're always better developing both T20 and a longer form of the game: most likely 50 over Cricket.
Great 
