I'm glad you've come out and said this. I hesitated to, for fear of being branded simply simply a miserable old sod. For a couple of years I didn't even know what the Hundred was. I simply ignored it. Then, when I looked into it, I could hardly believe that anybody could take an interest in it who was brought up on three and five day cricket (and let it be said, incidentally, that I I was truly abysmal cricketer at school, so my purism is nothing to do with that).
Nothing is more satisfying to me than to sit through a day and watch a batsman patiently build the foundation of a serious innings, maybe letting rip later on when the shine is off the new ball (and the shine is also off tiring bowlers, when their line and length start to get erratic). Maybe getting a bit of luck, too. A dubious call on an lbw shout (in the days before they could send it upstairs), a ball dropped in the slips. All part of an innings with architecture to it. It is
deeply satisfying.
I have almost no interest in T20 cricket, whether World Cup or otherwise. I will admit that as a lad I quite enjoyed the fifty-over form, without ever taking it anything like as seriously as the full test match form. It helped that at the time Lancashire were one of the premier fifty-over sides. It was a pleasant Sunday out. Train, sandwiches, back in the evening.
Edit: by the way,
@ancoats, what happened to all your question marks at the end of declarative sentences? You invented something interesting, there. A grammatical curve ball, in a manner of speaking.