I did not like the direction of v-shaped classes to A-shaped classes.
Also in 4e there was the problem of uncapped scores, so maintaining two main stats and a third one on top difficult.
Effectively characters usually only took on of the 2 secondaries/primaries.
So usually races were pushed into certain classes with specific "sub-classes" even more heavily than in 5e. I don't know how you get to your conclusion.
My point is that 4e presented races as being a fit for any class whereas 5e like manyother editions and games pushed certain race/class combos.
For example, the 4e Dwarf was +Con and +Wis. However in the adverturer second of the dwarf, the presented classes was fighter, cleric, and paladin. Fighter had Con and Wis as secondaries. Cleric has Wis as a primary. And Paladin has neither Con nor Wis as primary nor secondary. It pushed the idea of not caring if your race bonuses didn't match your preferred class.
5e pushed racial and subracial stereotypes from the PHB and DMG front to back. This caused expectations in DM and players alike. So when DMs and players wanted to break from racial and subracial stereotypes, expectations sat in the way.