It's worth noting that in 2004, there was a format created that the ECB could have borrowed if they were hell-bent on a hundred-ball competition built around big hitting.
Pro Cricket in the USA played
20 five-ball overs per side. Instead of four overs per bowler, they allowed five - requiring only four bowlers in a team, creating space for an extra batsman. They also instituted a
designated hitter rule, which allowed for one batsman to not be required to bowl or field and for one bowler/fielder not to be required to bat. This would suit a player like Chris Gayle down to the ground, and similarly a player like Matt Parkinson for the reverse reason.
It was still definitely cricket, but it allowed even a fairly mediocre player pool in the States to score at strike rates of between 150 and 180.
You could even add a couple of the Hundred's more sensible innovations and they wouldn't be out of place: things like the new batsman always facing the next ball after a wicket.
What would a Hundred side built according to these rules look like?
1.
Chris Gayle (DH)
2.
Ed Pollock
3.
Alex Hales
4.
Joe Root
5.
Dawid Malan
6.
Jack Taylor
7.
Tom Moores
8.
Lewis Gregory
9.
Rashid Khan
10.
Mark Watt
11.
Lahiru Kumara
XX.
Harry Gurney
Suddenly, you get a format where it makes sense to pack a team with big hitters down to number seven or eight. With the right approach, it could even see a rejuvenation of proper specialist skills like wicket-keeping. The added value of top-class bowlers (suddenly Rashid Khan gets to bowl 25% of a team's deliveries) allows for them to be specialists too.
And it would still fundamentally be cricket.