There is an ongoing debate on whether success depends on how much you desire it, with failure proving you did not want it bad enough. I, however, believe that it depends on the task, since certain tasks are achievable with enough work, while others simply are not.
On one hand, we have what we call our routine tasks and our goals, which usually consist of doing enough work at your job, getting a good mark on an exam or learning to cook per se. With these kinds of tasks all one really needs is patience and discipline, with little to no factors that are beyond one’s control. Mainly this happens because these are shared goals, meaning they are not unique and are made specifically from people and for people. For example, in a study contacted in the US, when asked what goals they had, people who reported ones that were considered “realistic” had achieved them within a year.
On the other hand, we have absurd goals that are simply impossible to achieve, ones that are considered dreams beyond realisation. Most of the time, these goals are the opposite of rational ones, with the person in question having no significant control of the situation, being but a puppet in the play. Certain criteria are just not meant to be hit by people, perhaps even guarding them from danger. For example, when one submits a job application, they can have no influence over the final decision, and no matter how good of a contender they are, rejection can come knocking on the door uninvited whenever.
In conclusion, whilst the majority of human targets can be hit with precision and discipline, a minority of it is beyond our control and is up to chance.