Mundane tasks weren't really the focus. This was a debate between Redhat and the Linux old guard where the points were all based on the extremes. They follow different ideas on how tools should work, though. Init systems focus on doing one or few things but doing them very well (the traditional UNIX approach). Systemd is a suite of many moving parts to accomplish a whole range of tasks (more modern). Init is mostly just bootstrap and services, but systemd is that plus networking, plus user sessions, plus logging, etc etc. More moving parts means increased complexity and more chance for failure. Systemd as a suite then becomes a potential single point failure where init based systems would not be. Scripting for either can be involved, but generally speaking init is/was easier to write things for.

I think most users today focus on Redhat's control and not putting too much faith in one setup for diversity's sake rather than the other points, but the original debate really was a philosophically based one. There isn't a right or wrong on these, but some really interesting history.