Normally, I'd look to each team's midfield for an indication of the likely eventual result, and that would mean Croatia wins.
But the 2018 World Cup isn't normal.
This version of England isn't that distinguished in terms of individual quality or collective style, but they're organised, more calm and conspicuously less stupid than most of the country's teams since 1996. Croatia, by contrast, seems a little frayed around the edges- and we must wait and see whether they suffered any decisive injuries last night.
Kieran Trippier is pretty much in a state of grace in terms of set-piece deliveries, and when a team like Sweden bungles its marking to allow a goal you begin to wonder where it all ends. And thanks to a header from a free kick the Croats landed an extra half hour's work as recently as last night.
Croatia would be a better team if they could swap Harry Kane for Mandzukic. I'd rather have Subasic (if healthy) in goal than Pickford. Neither team strikes me as having too many options off the bench.
Ultimately, my instinct is that whereas England can't play much better than they have so far, Croatia can- and it feels wrong that Modric should depart the World Cup with a whimper. Though England's 3-5-2 formation hasn't worked badly, yesterday we saw a couple of instances where suddenly they were caught 3 v 3 at the back, with the midfield cut adrift. I can imagine the Croats will be able to pass between their lines.
Whatever, this seems like the playoff for the right to lose the final.
Harry Kane is fantastic, and I'm saying that as someone who doesn't necessarily like his personality. The english press can sometimes overhype their players and than the rest of the world just laughs it off - but in Kane's case, I think he's a top, top striker, capable of holding up the play with best, dropping low, finishing, heading, strong - he's the complete package.
People saying England have been just lucky with the draw etc... You still have to win the games. Sweden beat Mexico and was the better team vs Germany in the first half. Colombia was missing James and playing some seriously negative football, but these teams aren't pushovers. They didn't exactly look to play attacking and score, but you still have to put them away.
England should not be underestimated, not by media, not by Croatia.
As for the game...
England has Kane and Sterling, something Croatia simply doesn't have when it comes to forwards. In these tournaments, having a guy who can put away 1 out of 2 chances as opposed to 1 out of 3 or 4 is HUGE.
Croatian trio (Perisic, Mandzukic, Rebic) is absolutely tireless and will press into oblivion, but their one-on-one skill is nonexist (except Rebic) and their finishing is far from world class (Kramaric might be the best when it comes to finishing, but I expect him to start on the bench).
Assuming none of these teams suddenly goes into a double block 30m from their goal like, guys like Lingard and Ali will leave their midfield positions to make attacking moves, as will Modric/Rakitic/Brozovic.
And that I think will be the biggest change to any game we've seen either of these teams play except Croatia vs Argentina.
There will be space to explore, but also attacking threats to be wary off.
I don't know what to expect. I would obviously very much like Croatia to win, but I'm far from confident in it.
One thing I don't agree is fighting for the "loser" spot in the final.
It's one game, anything can happen... A red card, set piece, early goal and then countering an opponent to death.
While France/Belgium are better on paper than England/Croatia, I wouldn't go more than 60-40 in any of the matchups.