Paul,
It's one thing to dislike a course, another to criticize it as sub-top-100 material. Your list of flaws seem to mostly fall under the category of "personal taste" - not that there's anything wrong with that at all, but I see you've said:
a) that you prefer linksland courses to heathland/parkland ones (so do I, mind you, but I try to view them as apples and oranges more than anything else);
b) that the variety of the course was a bit disappointing - which is a valid criticism to a degree (but see below), although you then say that you prefer courses with more par 3s and 5s....
c) that the 18th hole was a disappointment - but largely because your caddies either flat-out screwed up or weren't able to convey to you the sense of the blind-drive. That's not the hole's fault; as they say, the blind hole is only blind once to the golfer with a memory. When you play a hole only once, this is obviously going to be a problem - but can you really hold that against the hole itself?
And that's it. I don't mean to be mean, Paul, but I think the art of course criticism shouldn't be so coarse, if you'll pardon the pun. Narrow it down - what didn't you like?
Here's what I liked about the course:
1) Its variety. 
So what if the course has 13 par 4s? (Actually, I'd just about call the sixth a par 4, too...although I'd also call the 17th a par 3, so those cancel each other out.) How many of them feel the same to you? You've got three wonderful - and wonderfully different - short par 4s in nos. 3, 14 and 17 (if you want to call the latter a par 4), doglegs with a great variety of different angles and elevation changes, holes with hugely different looks and strategies to them (six and seven, both long par 4s in my book, couldn't be much different), and so on. If you're hitting a great variety of different shots with different strategies, none of which feel the same, who cares if they're all on par 4s, really? (Far better that than playing a course with 4-6 numbingly similar par 3s and par 5s.)
2) The green complexes. Varied, always interesting and intricate; 40-footers are always difficult two-putts, and most greens definitely have a "wrong side to miss it", but most recovery shots aren't hopelessly beyond the skill-sets of lesser players. For me, they elevate the course far above the likes of Woodhall Spa. In a word, marvelous.
3) The bunkering (which you say you really liked, so I shan't elaborate).
4) The routing (ditto).
5) The number of memorable holes. Were any of them "mind-blowing"? Not necessarily, but you could probably pick a number of other great courses which can't call the 16th at Cypress Point their own, either. That said, I'll remember virtually every hole at Ganton for a much longer period of time than I will the individual holes at any number of other courses in the current GB&I Top 100. If I had to pick four, I'd plump for 4, 7, 14 and 16, but I could name another half-dozen holes which I really, really liked. And I thought the 18th was just peachy - the drive needs to either be drawn hard, against the grain of the hill, or landed softly in such summertime conditions as you must have had, and I thought the green set up very nicely through the chute of trees. A very dignified finish.
6) The aesthetics. What a pleasantly rolling course - it just reeks of "English countryside" to me in the most pleasant way. And on three sides it's bordered by flat farms...quite miraculously, really, to find such a great piece of golfing land in such oasis-like circumstances.
7) The course wasn't impossibly difficult for lesser players, nor was it it far too easy for better ones. Always a good sign, in my book.
The only thing I flat-out didn't like was that "pond" they've fashioned out of a bunker on the ninth - but I assume that must be a drainage problem or something. (The club couldn't be that lame, really, could it?) Apart from that, I couldn't quarrel at all if Ganton had a spot well up the World Top 100. I haven't played many more inland courses in America that I'd rather play on a day-to-day basis over Ganton, that's for sure.
I'm not saying I'm a know-it-all by any means, and I'm sorry if I'm picking on you unfairly. But I really think one needs to master the art of detailed criticism if one wishes to speak with such volume as to be heard among (or even above) the assembled voices of intelligence in this discussion group. Like I said, it's perfectly fine if Ganton didn't tickle your fancy. Different people like CCFADs, too - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But if you want to convince me that I should like CCFADs more, or Ganton less, you'll need to back up your points with less subjectivity. Wanna have another crack?
Cheers,
Darren