You wouldn't watch Boston United v Sutton United because you have no affiliation to either of the teams. The players on display would also be some of the worst professional male footballers in the country playing against each other in a crap league.
However, you would presumably watch Swansea City v Sutton United if we played them in a competitive match, irrespective of whether there was a Premier League game on and irrespective of the standard. You would have a keen interest in the game and would likely discuss it on here. The fact that the players wouldn't ever be able to compete with Premier League players would be an irrelevance and you wouldn't feel the need to point out that our striker who had scored a screamer wouldn't have been able to have done it against faster, fitter, better players, etc. You'd just enjoyed it for what it was.
However, for some reason, presumably because it is women, you seem compelled to want to make pointless comparisons.
The Women's Ashes features most of the best women cricketers in the world playing against each other in a fiercely competitive series (in theory, it hasn't started in that way, sadly!) and those who have watched England over the last few years have obviously developed an affinity with them as is natural for people who follow sport.
In one breath you profess to enjoy Test cricket and say that the hundred is not real cricket yet in the other suggest that cricket is all about pace, power and athleticism. Aside from the fact that this is absolute rubbish and most people view cricket in the opposite way, I would argue that women's cricket is probably closer to 'real' cricket than the men's white ball game that is slowly becoming about who can hit the most sixes.
