1955 was Moss’s first full season, and he was beaten by one of the top drivers of all time. Also, he effectively had 3 retirements to Fangio’s 1, which explains why the gap was so large.
1958 and 1959, we came 1st or second in every race he finished- he couldn’t have done much more than that. 1960 he missed 3 races due to a bad accident before the race in Spa, and 1961 he had poor reliability again. Those are the reasons, or at least large contributors, to why he couldn’t win in those years.
Perhaps he is often rated above some drivers because people simply believe he was a better driver than them? He also raced against Brabham, so if Moss is rated above him, it’s likely because he was believed to be a better driver at the time.
“Then you can just as easily put Kimi Raikkonen and Nigel Mansell in the top 10 because;
1.) Unlike Moss at least they won a championship
2.) They too were very unfortunate to not be a 3 time champion or so.”
I don’t really understand your point here, because if you play it like that you can justify any order you want as long as it’s results based. For example, if we were discussing Jim Clark being so frequently highly rated:
Then you can just as easily put Niki Lauda and Nelson Piquet in the top 3 because;
1.) Unlike Clark at least they won 3 championships
2.) They too were very unfortunate to not be a 4 time champion or so.
Or you can use the same logic to argue that Gilles Villeneuve doesn’t belong in the top 20 any more than Hunt or Hawthorn for example.