Do you know if those stats took into account massive economic events? Such as market crashes?
Which tend to happen at least once a decade?
People often have a point to make, and will often ignore such data to make it. To add to this, outside of honest intent prejudiced with personal bias, there are parties lookong to undermine any aspect of success the West has, by invalidating those successful models.
If your strategy is successful 8/10 years and your lose enough money during the other 2 to be marked as unsuccessful, is that really a "successful model"?
Within that loss, some companies do better than others.
Whether that is skill, luck or finding some way to tilt the board in your favour (political influence for example) depends on who you ask.
I have read that the statistics the distribution of success in the VC field was compatible with a random distribution with a very small skill bias.
I do not know if that analysis was accurate and it will be 10 years out of date now.
But that there are winners and losers does not mean that it is not a game of chance.