How hard will they get humiliated in November?

it will set a new level in mohs scale

it doesn't matter, I will be shitposting obnoxiously that we are guaranteed to win and when we get knocked out I will take a break from Yea Forums for a few days. I am invulnerable

> a few days
for 4 years better

Attached: d5a.jpg (600x783, 33.12K)

Yea Forums virgins spend more time shitposting about my country during a tournament, instead of enjoying watching their own country play. Talk about rent free.

Attached: 1645495516252.jpg (798x601, 350.64K)

say the line england

Falklands invasion lol

Xdddd

Uh oh britbros

IT'S CAMMIN 'OME

bongbros... it's over

Are the French trying to distract everyone from their inevitable WC group stage exit? Champions curse?

lol

You poor little child

Pulisic finna dab on em fr fr

they legit have expectations at a minimum of making the final.
So probably pretty hard.

it's over

Attached: file.png (600x600, 424.21K)

>November
Before that, June-September. Nations League against Germany and Italy.

britbros wtf…

Rude

Watched argies England 1998 earlier. There were based Falklands chants

Seethe and cope.

>We could win the world cup

Lost me right there

Yep

They'll place third in the groups.

Attached: Group B survivors.png (1218x561, 110.31K)

and then you woke up

nice

Sure.
White flag waving surrender-monkey.
Howzat, Pierre?

funny that

Attached: 1649223317184.jpg (1440x2301, 953.77K)

ans I'm English

Attached: 19024-gelandang-timnas-inggris-raheem-sterling-terjatuh-di-kotak-penalti.jpg (970x544, 88.54K)

They can't statpad against us, it will be tough for them

> Comes into a football thread
> Uses rugby
???
Shall I use ping pong and curling as well?

just use the post-2008 team gb medal table results

if we're surrender monkeys then why can't you beat >us at what is basically a fighting sport with a ball?
the answer is simple: one frenchman is worth ten englishmen give or take

The French are funny. How about you concentrate on not being humiliated by the Swiss in hilarious fashion.

how about you concentrate on seeing england win a world cup once in your lifetime

someone hasn't received their copy of this year's script

>We could win the world cup, winning every game in normal time and without conceding a goal against difficult opposition during every single knockout game and Yea Forums would still find a way to discredit it.
Literally what Emma did in the US Open - won every match without even needing a tie-break and not even dropping a set and yet Yea Forums discredits her win. It just isn't fair bros

> What is Agincourt?

a meme battle where english archers had the high ground while french knights walked towards them through mud like complete retards
if you want a more accurate representation of the power balance between our two peoples, google "battle of patay"

So ours was a meme victory and yours wasn’t? We gave our position away due to a hunting cry when a stag was in the woods
They’re both meme battles if you wanna classify them as that

during the entire 100 years war france had 5x the population of britain
during the napoleonic era france had twice as many people as britain
the real question is, why does france seem to squander such advantages of size? how did france blow it so badly?

during the entire napoleonic wars, britain was bankrolling a coalition of every great power in europe to fight in its place, nullifying the demographic argument
the englishman is a fragile creature who can't fight his own battles

Cry more lad, you’re known as surrender monkeys for a reason
The once noble France is dead, you’re all a bunch of Algerian negroids now
Paris was a beautiful city and just look at the fucking state of it lad

>winning a war by fighting as little with your own soldiers as you possibly can
sounds pretty smart and sensible to me. whats your excuse for the 100 years war? yes you won, but you were also invaded for a long time by a country with 1/5th the population of your own.

>during the entire napoleonic wars, britain was bankrolling a coalition of every great power in europe to fight in its place, nullifying the demographic argument
why couldn't france bankroll harder than britain when they had double the population? i know the answer btw, it's because we were smarter than you and had developed better economic systems than you had.

>you’re known as surrender monkeys for a reason
because your self-worth is inversely proportional to ours, you're a lowly people who compensate for your mediocrity by disparaging your superiors
>whats your excuse for the 100 years war?
england was a centralised kingdom while the crown of france had to deal with several rebellious duchies such as burgundy, allowing the english to achieve some degree of success until their innate mediocrity unfortunately caught up
>double the population?
not true if you account for india thoughever

England
> Biggest empire to ever exist

France
> Niggers

france
>had an empire in europe
england
>niggers, poos, paddies

France is more niggerfied than England mate

>england was a centralised kingdom while the crown of france had to deal with several rebellious duchies such as burgundy, allowing the english to achieve some degree of success until their innate mediocrity unfortunately caught up
a centralised kingdom of 1/5th the size.
>not true if you account for india thoughever
the raj didn't exist until after the napoleonic wars, we didn't hold much of india during this period. also, you had colonies too.

Attached: 1637749815465.jpg (1368x1688, 240.02K)

Leave England to me frogman

Attached: 1624959030776.jpg (1080x1101, 97.33K)

>>had an empire in europe
not so fast

Attached: Battle_of_Trafalgar,_21_October_1805.png (1200x688, 971.61K)

I mean yeah I guess jamaicans and other negroes from the caribbeans aren't as black as actual african negroes
>a centralised kingdom of 1/5th the size.
this is a non-argument considering greater centralisation allows for better taxation and a more efficient use of levies (such as english longbowmen)
besides the french royal domain wasn't as populous as you think, as a matter of fact the house of valois was only able to win after the burgundians ended their alliance with england

>this is a non-argument considering greater centralisation allows for better taxation and a more efficient use of levies (such as english longbowmen)
>besides the french royal domain wasn't as populous as you think, as a matter of fact the house of valois was only able to win after the burgundians ended their alliance with england
it doesn't matter what you say really, england was the underdog in the 100 years war, you cannot deny it. and it's widely accepted.