Subversion is basically CVS done right. The problem is that CVS was a dead end that didn't scale to a distributed development model.

Git goes back to the local RCS model and adds atomic commits to that model. That's how it climbed out of the local optimum that was Subversion. There were a couple controversial choices that Git made, for example not tracking renames and not having linear revision numbers, but they turned out to be not a big deal and they allowed very efficient operations without the performance issues of e.g. darcs.

Given all the attempts to fix version control between 1995 and 2010, the basic data model of git seems to be very hard to improve on, especially with additions such as git-lfs.

There could be new command line interfaces but it has become harder and harder to kick away the incumbents. I know no one who is using git switch and git restore instead of the overloaded and confusing git checkout.