They were both shît and beep tramps for money.
Who cares?
What's the fùcking point of anything, anymore?

this vote is now closed.
Here are the results:
Frank Lampard 48% Steven Gerrard 52%

The second one was deliberate.

What started out as a joke has turned out to be a disaster

Yeah, one is Lampard, the other lamps hard.

If I was looking for someone to lamp a DJ in a completely unprovoked attack, I'd go with Gerrard every time. He was way better than Lampard at that.
Shall we play a game?

Lamps was much more prolific in the goals department. He gets the nod from me.
You're my wife now.

You can't accept the reasoning that the player who scored, created and won more from the same position is probably better?

What started out as a joke has turned out to be a disaster

Bergkamp.
What's up white people.
http://docthewho.wordpress.com/

• check my blog

Neville and Carragher discuss Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard.
Carragher predictably chose Gerrard, Neville predictably chose Scholes (well he said Scholes is the best player he ever played with)
I do think we wasted Scholes' talent somewhat though, he was the closest thing we had to a Pirlo or Iniesta or Xavi.
So mismanaged by Sven or was he just not as good as Lampard and Gerrard? I'd go for the former.

Nah, he was rubbish. A one paced, play-by-numbers footballer who was fortunate too be playing his trade at a club who were about to embark on an almost unparalleled run of success. Very much made to look a better player than he was, by the team and the coaching staff he was fortunate enough to be around.
I probably [read:definitely] exaggerated by branding him shít, as he did have moments (emphasis on moments as they were incredibly fleeting) but great he most certainly wasn't. Too wildly inconsistent, too few stand out skills, too often injured and far too concerned with the trappings of football life, rather than the actuality of football life. A one paced, basic football player who's career panned out in the manner it was always going to.
We don't tolerate sexual harassment in the workplace
we grade it.

I'm guessing the Lee Sharpe suggestion was tongue in cheek but whatever; Dele Alli already has as many goals as Sharpe in his almost 200 appearances at Man United. The potential in Alli is immense. If anyone can think of another non-striker from the PL who scored 10 or more goals in consecutive seasons at age 20, I'd love to hear who they are. And he hasn't been taking any penalties. Lampard and Gerrard both had seasons where they scored 10 penalties each.

He got meningitis didn't he?
He was pretty good just before Giggs emerged, but I don't think he was ever the same after he took ill.

Lee Sharpe wasn't shít. I mean he was, in hindsight. But for a shining moment he wasn't, he was great.

Lee Sharpe was shít though. Alli isn't so I would have expected a more fitting comparison. 90% of me thought you were being tongue in cheek, hence the laughing head. Maybe not.
We don't tolerate sexual harassment in the workplace
we grade it.

There's something about Alli that suggests to me more Sharpe than Lampard.
Seriously, though, I knew
someone
would pick me up on that post. You get what I mean though.

Come on, now. Alli, while terrific, has yet to graduate from the Lee Sharpe class.
Lee Sharpe?! Harsh.
He's already better than Lee Sharpe ever was and, to be fair, he's in a better place than Lampard was at the same age. Not saying he has anything like the career Gerrard and Lampard have, but he's definitely in at least as good a position, at the same age, as either (better than Lampard, similar to Gerrard).
We don't tolerate sexual harassment in the workplace
we grade it.

Come on, now. Alli, while terrific, has yet to graduate from the Lee Sharpe class.
I mean, who knows? But let's not, just yet.

I might have said Gerrard once upon a time. The regularity of his goalscoring and Gerrard's unforced error moments in his career that have somewhat tarnished it, lead me to pick Lampard.
I'm eagerly awaiting the point when we can add Dele Alli to this debate, and ask 'Frank Lampard v Steven Gerrard: who comes second to Alli?'

then the A* in Latin should give him the edge.
Willkommen im Zeitalter des Trump!

The impossible question The areas of the pitch they like to cover re to similar.
Yup.
I think we can only state who we prefer to
watch
play, as opposed to who is objectively the better player. They have dissimilar styles, despite occupying the same (general) geography on the pitch.
Personally I preferred to watch Gerrard, because from time to time something
really
special happens. But Lampard's consistency - as uninteresting as it might be to me - means he owns the stats (as well as confirming genuine quality).

The impossible question.
Gerard for a single half and overtime of football.. (CL FINAL), Lamp perhaps just overall the better short passer and finisher, gerrard the better long passer - however this could have also been his downfall, when he tried too many at a later age and dropping deeper to fill in.
Lampard even at city played high up, and scored goals for fun. He never really adapted his game.
Overall lamps then;
Both were ok but not great for England. Managers fault though imo. Both tried for England , they were just not suited in one team. The areas of the pitch they like to cover re to similar.
ΨΨ

StevieMe.
I expect Lampard to win on here, maybe the LFC fans will win SG the BBC vote. Seems like a nicer fella that Lampard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpvcfv5FjfE&feature=related

you wouldn't have swapped him out for Lampard at his absolute best.
I dunno. Gerrard looks more fancy on MOTD, and I'm sure his highlight reel on youtube looks more impressive, but if I wanted to build a team that is gonna win titles I'd go for Lampard. I'm not just saying that because he has won titles, but I think you are going to get a lot more consistency out of Lampard over a season, he is more intelligent, he'll chip in with more goals, he'll use the ball better (sometimes the simple ball is better than the hollywood ball), he is more disciplined positionally but he still knows the right time to break forward and hurt the opposition.
But if I was 2-0 down in a cup final with 30 minutes left and I looked at my bench and saw Lampard and Gerrard itching to get on, I think I'd roll the dice and tell Gerrard to warm up first and do your sh!t, and I'd give him a certain amount of freedom to get me back in the game.
That said I'd be happy with either. But Lampard would get the nod overall for me.

Lampard had more consistent class and his stats and achievements will back that up, but Gerrard hit higher heights and at his absolute best, you wouldn't have swapped him out for Lampard at
his
absolute best. Personally, I'd say Lampard was the better player overall (and better than Paul Scholes, for that matter) but I'd listen to counter arguments if this wasn't such a tired, played-out debate.