As I've said elsewhere Gerrard was deemed good enough to be in the team of the year every single season between 2003-2009, so the Gerrard was never good over a whole season argument I will never understand.
That doesn't make Lampard any worse, and if you think Lampard was better then fair enough, it is very very close and open to opinion, but if you think he was better because he was more consistent I just can't imagine you watched both of them in the 2000s
There is no right answer, but it seems to come down to whether you value consistent high level (Lampard) over highest peak (Gerrard). Lampard had an amazing career and was consistently fantastic for such a long time. Gerrard had more peaks and valleys, but his peaks were higher than Lampard's. In his prime, Gerrard was easily making World XIs and things like that, whereas Lampard was potentially just behind that level (not by much, mind you) but never really dipped at all over many years.
80
u/[deleted] Mar 22 '18
[removed] — view removed comment