I don't remember many details about the combat system in Chrono Trigger, only that the game was one of the few menu-based combat JRPGs that I actually liked (and almost played through completely), but I think that was more due to the story than the combat. In general I like static menu-based combat even less than screen switching. But I can endure both in good games, the specific systems are less important to me than the sum of the game's parts. Its just that in many of these games there is such an overabundance of combat that a combat system that I don't enjoy can ruin the whole game for me, which would not happen if combat was less frequent. So I think my main gripe with these JRPGs is neither the screen switching nor the menu-based combat per se, but that I get bored by the constant repetition of it. RPGs without screen switching and with free positioning in the world also have lots of combats, of course, but often they don't feel as repetitive to me because I feel more involved if I'm allowed to actively move the characters around and use the terrain, and if the context is slightly different every time, all of which makes the fights more distinctive and memorable to me (e.g. one fight took place on the hill, another in the woods beyond it etc.). I put more store in immersion than systems.

I think as a general rule: if combat is real time, nay; if combat is turn-based, yay. But each game is its own world.

Interestingly, this question pops up for strategy games as well: whether to have combat take place on the main map (as Civilization does) or in a separate battle map (like in Master of Magic). What doesn't really work is trying to squeeze tactical combat into the strategic map, like Civilization V or VI. It creates way more problems than it solves.