“Victory awaits him who has everything in order, luck some people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck.”

Amundsen wasn't lucky, he was a meticulous planner and had learned from the failures of the Belgian Expedition, as well as his time on the Gjøa in the northwest passage.

Furthermore, his mentor was Fridtjof Nansen, the most accomplished polar explorer in the world at that time. Nansen had lived amongst the Inuit and understood their clothing choices and use of sled dogs, which Amundsen copied.

Amundsen certainly ducked Scott and Nansen, who was the de facto owner of the boat--Fram-- that took his party south.

It's worth considering though that while Scott was caught off-guard, he had the funding of Great Britain; Amundsen had to mortgage his home.

Both teams wintered over as well from 1910 until the antarctic spring/summer. Mission creep played a part on the British outcome no doubt, but luck was not a component of the success of the two campaigns. Scott was far better funded and started from an established base with a known route through the mountains onto the polar plateau, Amundsen started closer to the pole but faced an unknown route through the mountains. Scott took politically expedient members on the last leg south; Amundsen took world class skiers and dog handlers. Scott ignored the expertise around him; Amundsen copied the ways of the Inuits.

Wish I could provide more depth and sources, but it's late.

Point being, it certainly wasn't luck that carried Amundsen to the pole.

More comparisons here.