Lampard was the only privately educated player in England's squad for many years. Dad, uncle and cousin all prominent in football. Walks into playing, punditry (see also: J Redknapp) and coaching careers. He clearly works very hard and is talented, but is massively privileged. https://twitter.com/Ankaman616/status/1276143842446761985

The issue is, Lampard denies he is privileged because his natural instinct - driven by centre-right political ideology - is to believe that hard work is the sole reason for his success. Most people work very hard. Many of them are talented *but* would not have his opportunities.

Lampard got the Derby job because 'Arry pulled the strings. He was not the best candidate for the job. He got the Chelsea job because of his contacts and popularity there. He was not the best available candidate for that job. This is the definition of privilege.

Lampard was undeniably a very good player, a thoroughly decent pundit and a promising manager. That has required a lot of hard work and tired. It is not contradictory to believe that and also be aware that he was afforded massive leg ups that other talented people were not.

This concept of 'privilege' very relevant to Chelsea yesterday. Lampard was totally out-coached by Wilder (not for the first time). No embarrassment, Wilder is great & Lampard is learning. Yet no blame apportioned to Lampard post-match. He was praised for 'anger' at players.

Lampard's Chelsea is a high-end version of Lampard's Derby. A cohesive attacking unit with an admirable emphasis on youth and proactive tactics. Yet hopeless at defending set-pieces and counter-attacks, ultimately they reflect Lampard's pros and flaws as a coach.

The media - many of whom ex playing/punditry colleagues, one is his cousin - are unlikely to go in hard on Lampard. But saying SU won 3-0 because 'their players wanted it more' feels lazy and meaningless. Lampard's limitations were badly exposed - same issues keep reappearing.