Then what are the stats for then? It is a sport and greatness is measured by achievement. I could just as well put Fisichella on the list then and say he was blindingly quick without the luck. Anyway, Fangio, Senna, Prost, Stewart, Lauda etc etc are on the list because they were successful not because they possessed some neat skill that others didn't have. Formula 1 is very much about being in the right place at the right time and begrudging Schumacher based on that is ludicrous. I wonder of they will use the same logic when rating Senna... He was after all in the best car by a country mile when he won his titles.
I think this list is tripe.
That is a good analogy using Fisi as it does prove the difference (to some extent).
Drivers that start out in mediocre cars but excel themselves in that car usually rise to the top cars. However, it is what they do with the top cars that makes the difference. Some can't handle the pressure and they don't show the potential they did in a mediocre car. The great drivers will perform well in both. That is the distinguishing difference. Just because someone is blindingly quick in a mediocre car does not equate to being awesome in a top car. That has happened numerous times over the history of F1.
Being politically successfull is part of the driver skillset. Without that a driver can't be considered a great. They generally have a win at all costs attitude. That is slightly different in the early days of F1 as it was too dangerous, therefore they had to be political off track instead of just being blindingly quick on track.
Sometimes it appears that the drivers that have made it so high on the list have always had the quickest car. It is the driver who can get the maximum out of the car which sometimes makes it appear to be the quickest car. But if the rivals aren't able to get the maximum out of a potentially quicker car, then it can mask the results.
It isn't just what you achieve, it is how you achieve it. A driver does not need the quickest car to achieve greatness, but it helps.
At the end of the day, it is a list compiled by the BBC. They have their favourites and they won't be 100% impartial, no matter what they say. But that is their opinion. Doesn't mean that everyone agrees with it or has to agree with it. All of the top 4 drivers (you don't have to be a genius to work out the other 3) have strong arguments why they could be considered the greatest, but as it is a list, they have to be put in some order. And yes their teammates should be considered into the argument as well as the era they drove in.