In a word, no. I don't necessarily enjoy watching it. But I do enjoy that there is a strategy that lesser teams employ to combat being so outmatched. I like that soccer features David versus Goliath situations. I like the idea of these huge clubs going to play in some 5,000-seat stadium in the middle of nowhere, England, and have to decide whether or not to even play their best players, but risk bowing out of the tourney early. The fact that there are opportunities for huge upsets is fun for me. I prefer college football/basketball to NFL/NBA for the same reason.
I like that fans for most soccer clubs seem to have their own definition of what a successful result is, or a successful season looks like, which doesn't have to end in victory or a championship.
Historically, I like the limited substitutions as it puts a real emphasis on being able to run that much in 90 minutes. But there's no doubt that having more substitutions makes for a better viewing experience.
As for the USWNT, it seems clear to me that Rapinoe and, perhaps to a lesser degree, Morgan, are washed up and shouldn't get much time from here on out. I haven't seen enough of Rodman, Smith, and Thompson to have an opinion on their quality, but if they aren't better than Rapinoe and Morgan, the US isn't going to advance that far in this tournament. I don't mind that Rapinoe and Morgan are on the roster, but they shouldn't be playing much more than as late-match substitutes.