You directly diminished his game to just being lucky. Not being lucky in some cases, your exact words were "he had a LUCKY game", which is a statement you have thus far refused to actually explain.
Probably you should ask or interview highly qualified and contemporary players about the very phenomenon of "luck" in this game. You would probably wonder about the answers you'd get. Half of the players are superstitious, they make the sign of the cross when entering the field and when leaving it, they have their specific and individual "talismans" and so on and so forth. That's just because they don't dismiss the role of luck in the game, which you may also name as being "divine intervention", karma, fate or anything similar.
Players don't just employ and wish for luck, but they are also aware that there is always an unknown, unguidable factor involved in the game and even the best of the best crave for this unknown variable, besides doing their practical best on the grass.
"Even if we are the best we need to be also lucky" - told the best teams for themselves for decades, even if some good humans here and elsewhere think very differently. Believe me the players better know that, the fans and experts often tend to forget it or simply they don't know or care about it.
If someone doesn't know this, doesn't understand this, okay let it be his problem or lack of observational awareness.
Just a single and practical example: weren't the Portuguese "lucky" to win the EC last year? Of course they were, Fortuna was highly supporting them after not having won a single game in the firsts round. The 3:3 at Portugal-Hungary was the good example of that, Hungary scoring the 1st, 2nd and 3rd goals first. Mere luck (as far as the result goes) that Ronaldo could equalize very close to the end. If you watched that game, you would not have thought you've just seen the winner. Weren't they a bit lucky in the final without Ronaldo? Of course they were when a late substitute scored a goal from an almost accidental straight far shot, that does not go in in 90% of cases.
Of course teams and individual players need the "unknown factors" to be on their side. Those who deny that, think very differently compared to players and coaches...
Okay back to MATS, if I said "he had a lucky game", that means he had a game where luck was ALSO at his side. Besides being good, vigilant, alert he could not complain to the gods, because reaching a ball with the tip of a finger unfortunately also NEEDS a bit of luck. It of course can be practiced, etc. but sometimes it works for his advantage, whereas sometimes it does not. When it does, he is a bit lucky, regardless his great efforts. This factor that I call luck (and all players do) is an INTEGRAL FACTOR of this game.
It doesn't mean his entire performance just simply depended on luck, it means he ALSO needed that for the end-result.
And to answer your question, end result is what counts.
Understood. Unfortunately the end-result very often includes a bit of luck, as an unknown or uncountable variable, thus what you are saying is true, but sometimes the luckiest players are considered to be the best by the innocent fans, and their enthusiasm only last as long as the luck of a player does.
The best also need a bit of luck, there is a problem is if they don't have any, or it's often hardly noticeable if they are as good as Messi. In Paris Messi did the same dribbles that he usually does, tried the same nutmegs too, none worked, which you may interpret that Messi played badly, but also that he had no luck that day. He did his best, nothing worked. But a week earlier it did, a week from now it will again, so from his point of view or angle it was an unlucky day for him.
The entire MSN is known for trying to finish by a nutmeg, trying to shot in between the legs of the goalkeepers. They had dozens of goals like that. Recently Messi was luckier in this regard than Neymar, so he scored a lot like that, whereas Neymar's very similar shots were often intercepted. Reaction? Good folks wanted to cut Neymar's throat for not scoring enough. Were they right? Partially, because what they care about is the end result. But they should also know that even the best need to be a bit lucky to score like that.
I've seen hundreds of games where the worse team won with awful and inferior playing just by a lucky goal. You have also seen many games like that. The last one you saw four days ago. We were inferior but while playing awfully we finally won by a penalty. The end result what counts? Yes. By point or trophies, but a triumphant end result can be achieved in many different ways.
It's often not the best but the luckiest are rushing away with those trophies, a pity that in a few years only the end-results will be remembered.
