Given the number of times I've had to go in and rescue someone using e.g. SVN or Hg, I can't say I've had the same experience.

The major problem is that as soon as you have a team of people with the same repo checked out, you have as many branches as you have people. These branches may not have explicit representations in the underlying VCS, but they exist just the same.

And so then you're dealing with scary "merge conflicts" for work that people have, from their perspective, already done but can't commit and push out.

Subversion is simple to understand because it is simple, and relatively incapable. If you only use git like you would use Subversion, it's simple too. Subversion is much less easy when you have to do something like merging a long-lived branch.

You conveniently omit the inclusion of mercurial in the list. Mercurial is as powerful as git is--in a few cases, arguably more so (phases make history rewriting safe!)--and yet there is pretty objectively far less confusion for newbies than git has.

There's ample evidence that git is unnecessarily complicated for the DVCS model it uses.