I totally agree. Back when I used Subversion it felt to me like there obviously must be a better way to version control and that the tool got in my way all the time. Git on the other hand almost always can solve my problems and while some things could be improved (confusing UX, a bit too complex, plus bad handling of conflicts) it is much closer to the right tool for VCS than Subversion ever was.
What are the problems that Subversion has? My only experience of svn is of simple personal projects and in that scope it worked pretty well - not contesting your opinion, but would like to know at which point svn becomes problematic.
If subversion had branches, they were not nearly as easy to use as in git.
It also didn't have a great notion of offline work (to my memory).
For what it's worth, SVN was pretty straightforward and worked well enough at the time. Later, Mercurial addressed SVN's deficiencies with a familiar interface.
IN my experience pull requests were not a thing in Subversion. We would attach patch files to Jira for code reviews. Git allowed for much easier workflow with merging branches instead of directly applying patches to trunk. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that we used Bitbucket for Git hosting and a plain Subversion server with no extra features to help with code reviews.
