Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

Most Recent FO Features


» Word of Muth: One Man Gang

With Brett Hundley and other backups struggling to get by, it was an ugly outing for Green Bay against Cleveland, but Ben Muth found one Packers lineman playing well.

06 Jan 2014

Week 18 DVOA Ratings

by Aaron Schatz

Once again, it is time for postseason DVOA ratings. As always, the following rules apply:

  • All 32 teams are ranked, whether they made the playoffs or not.
  • Teams are ranked in order of weighted DVOA, not total season DVOA.  Since weighted DVOA is meant to lower the strength of older games, these ratings do not include Weeks 1-4, and Weeks 5-10 are somewhat discounted.
  • Teams which did not play in the wild card round are treated as if they had a bye week. (That includes both the 20 non-playoff teams and the four teams with byes.) 

The playoff odds report is updated through the wild card games. You will find DVOA matchup pages for the four second round games on the FO Premium page. Remember that the equation used to determine win probabilities for the playoff odds report is not as complex as the one used for FO Premium picks, so picks may differ.

Roster data will be updated to include the Wild Card round by later this evening.

* * * * *

To save people some time, we remind everyone to put their angry troll hatred into the official zlionsfan angry troll hatred Mad Libs form:

<team> is clearly ranked <too high/too low> because <reason unrelated to DVOA>. <subjective ranking system> is way better than this. <unrelated team-supporting or -denigrating comment, preferably with poor spelling and/or chat-acceptable spelling>

If you are new to our website, you can read the explanation of how DVOA is figured here. As always, positive numbers represent more points so DEFENSE is better when it is NEGATIVE.

Teams in yellow are still alive in the playoffs. Teams in gray lost this past weekend.

1 SEA 47.9% 1 13-3 9.7% 8 -31.2% 1 7.0% 6
2 NE 26.9% 5 12-4 26.8% 2 9.5% 24 9.5% 4
3 DEN 25.4% 2 13-3 26.9% 1 -6.0% 9 -7.5% 28
4 CAR 24.8% 4 12-4 5.2% 11 -16.9% 5 2.7% 12
5 PHI 22.3% 3 10-7 23.2% 4 -0.9% 15 -1.7% 24
6 SF 21.0% 6 13-4 8.5% 10 -3.9% 11 8.6% 5
7 KC 20.2% 9 11-6 9.9% 7 0.3% 17 10.5% 3
8 NO 19.2% 7 12-5 17.6% 5 -5.6% 10 -3.9% 26
9 STL 18.9% 10 7-9 -5.9% 21 -12.7% 6 12.1% 2
10 SD 17.4% 12 10-7 24.9% 3 10.8% 25 3.4% 10
11 CIN 15.4% 8 11-6 1.4% 16 -12.3% 7 1.7% 15
12 ARI 13.4% 11 10-6 2.6% 13 -18.5% 3 -7.7% 29
13 PIT 7.8% 13 8-8 9.6% 9 4.2% 20 2.3% 13
14 BAL 0.2% 18 8-8 -22.3% 30 -10.1% 8 12.5% 1
15 CHI 0.0% 14 8-8 13.6% 6 16.9% 31 3.3% 11
16 IND -2.7% 21 12-5 1.2% 17 3.4% 19 -0.5% 19
17 DET -2.9% 15 7-9 -6.7% 22 -1.9% 13 1.9% 14
18 TEN -4.9% 16 7-9 5.1% 12 9.3% 23 -0.7% 21
19 MIA -5.3% 19 8-8 -0.7% 18 -0.1% 16 -4.7% 27
20 BUF -6.0% 17 6-10 -14.8% 25 -17.7% 4 -8.8% 30
21 MIN -6.6% 24 5-10-1 -1.8% 19 11.0% 26 6.1% 8
22 TB -6.6% 20 4-12 -8.1% 23 -3.5% 12 -2.0% 25
23 NYJ -6.7% 23 8-8 -8.9% 24 -1.0% 14 1.2% 16
24 NYG -6.7% 22 7-9 -24.9% 31 -18.9% 2 -0.7% 22
25 DAL -9.8% 25 8-8 2.5% 14 18.2% 32 5.9% 9
26 GB -11.8% 26 8-8-1 1.5% 15 12.6% 29 -0.6% 20
27 ATL -14.3% 27 4-12 -1.8% 20 13.6% 30 1.1% 17
28 JAC -19.6% 28 4-12 -18.0% 29 8.3% 22 6.8% 7
29 CLE -27.8% 29 4-12 -15.6% 27 12.3% 28 0.1% 18
30 WAS -31.5% 30 3-13 -15.0% 26 0.4% 18 -16.1% 32
31 HOU -33.9% 31 2-14 -25.0% 32 7.5% 21 -1.3% 23
32 OAK -39.4% 32 4-12 -16.0% 28 12.3% 27 -11.2% 31

Here are the one-game DVOA ratings for the first round of the playoffs. Yes, two games came out with as exact ties before opponent adjustments. When you see that San Francisco has a negative DVOA after opponent adjustments, do remember that the opponent adjustments for Green Bay are based on only half a season of Aaron Rodgers, so San Francisco's defense was a little bit better than this.

DVOA (with opponent adjustments)
IND 19% 29% 13% 3%
KC 14% 22% 10% 2%
NO 45% 30% -11% 4%
PHI 2% 18% 13% -3%
SD 38% 32% -5% 1%
CIN -28% -24% 9% 5%
SF -3% -6% -1% 3%
GB 13% 10% -7% -4%
VOA (no opponent adjustments)
IND 11% 21% 14% 3%
KC 11% 22% 13% 2%
NO 26% 28% 5% 4%
PHI -14% 15% 25% -3%
SD 29% 23% -5% 1%
CIN -14% 0% 19% 5%
SF 7% 7% 3% 3%
GB 7% 10% -1% -4%

* * * * *

During the 2013 season, we'll be partnering with EA Sports to bring special Football Outsiders-branded items to Madden 25 Ultimate Team. Each week, we'll be picking out a handful of players who starred in that week's games. Some of them will be well-known players who stood out in standard stats. Others will be under-the-radar players who only stood out with advanced stats, including DYAR, Defeats, and our game charting coverage stats for cornerbacks. We'll announce the players each week in the DVOA commentary article, and the players will be available in Madden Ultimate Team packs the following weekend, beginning Friday night.

The Football Outsiders stars for Wild Card weekend are:

  • T.Y. Hilton, WR, IND (Limited Edition): Led all WR with 102 DYAR this week (13 receptions, 224 yards, 2 TD)
  • Donald Butler, ILB, SD: Led all defenders with four Defeats, all on Giovani Bernard (2 TFL, forced fumble, tackle to prevent third-down conversion)
  • King Dunlap, LT, SD: Limited Michael Johnson to no sacks, one QB hit, and one tackle
  • Mark Ingram, RB, NO: Led all RB with 46 DYAR this week (18 carries, 97 yards, TD)

You'll learn more about Hilton and Ingram's games tomorrow when we run Wild Card Quick Reads. Sorry no 49ers, but Colin Kaepernick is getting covered on Madden's Team of the Week.

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 06 Jan 2014

88 comments, Last at 03 Nov 2017, 1:48am by Keirie


by PirateFreedom :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 5:56pm

"Seattle white and the seven dwarfs" is spam!

let us see if this posts or if I once again give up on F.O. for a while

by AusTom (not verified) :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 5:59pm

Wow, 49ers numbers are lower than expected, even after factoring in the 'no Aaron Rogers' for opponent adjustment impact. It felt (to me at least) like SF controlled that game more than the numbers indicate.

by coremill :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 9:38pm

Was also surprised by this. SF outgained GB by 100 yards in almost the same number of plays and averaged 6.0 yards per play to GB's 4.6. The turnover hurts, I guess.

by DenverCheeze (not verified) :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 12:25pm

Taking into consideration how BAD the Green Bay 'D' is and its extremely low rank the opponent adjustment probably brought them down.

by coremill :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:01pm

Look at the VOA numbers without opponent adjustments: VOA has the Packers better on both offense and defense but way behind on special teams, which seems counter-intuitive given both the "feel" of the game and the Niners' significant yardage advantages. Maybe SF was less consistent but better at breaking big plays?

by tuluse :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:16pm

3-4% VOA is not a big difference. I think it's basically saying the game was a draw.

by Nick Bradley (not verified) :: Wed, 01/08/2014 - 9:21am

That's what other models would tell you.

Looking at EPA, the 49ers outgained Green Bay 10.2 to 6.4. However, Green Bay's success rate was 54% compared to only 47% for the 49ers. SR is defined as the percentage of plays that result in a positive EPA.

What this says is that the 49ers accumulated a much larger aggregate EPA on a lot fewer plays. Hence, more big plays.


by coremill :: Wed, 01/08/2014 - 12:43pm

Well you're exaggerating a bit. The Niners ran 63 plays, so 30 of their 63 plays were successful. Green Bay ran 61 plays, so 33 of their plays were successful. A difference of 3 plays is not really a lot fewer plays. SF was slightly less consistent but significantly more productive.

by tuluse :: Wed, 01/08/2014 - 6:31pm

Kaepernick threw a pick and Rodgers didn't. The 49ers had 1 fumble and the Packers had 2. A fumble is treated basically like half a turnover I think. So 1.5 turnovers for the 9ers, 1 turnover for the Packers.

The 49ers also stalled out at the goalline a few times which is weighted in VOA.

by floressalicis :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 6:10pm

Melvin Ingram, RB, NO - I didn't know that Melvin Ingram switched to playing RB instead of LB, and teams as well! ;)

by nath :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 4:02pm

Can we trade Mark Ingram for Melvin? We need an OLB opposite Galette.

by rrsquid :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 6:19pm

Cue Nick Bradley complaining in 3... 2... 1...

by Nick Bradley (not verified) :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 9:35am

And that doesn't include any weighting for win probability.

by milo :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 6:53pm

"WEIGHTED DVOA is adjusted so that earlier games in the season become gradually less important. It better reflects how the team was playing at the end of the season."

This makes perfect sense. The team with the highest DVOA of the weekend drops one place in weighted DVOA ranking. Because it's gradual.

I'd really be interested in seeing your Excel formula for this.

by chasehas :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 7:13pm

I imagine it's because Weighted DVOA only takes into consideration the last eight games, which means the 49-17 win vs. Dallas is no longer considered.

by DavidL :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 7:15pm

I'm not sure if they're continuing to roll the Weighted DVOA timeframe forward in the playoffs, but if they are, and thus dropped Week 4 entirely from weighted DVOA this week, while discounting Week 10 for the first time, that would explain it - the Saints absolutely destroyed Miami in Week 4, and beat Dallas in Week 10 even more badly than that.

by chasehas :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 7:29pm

For some reason, I was thinking the weight was only for the last 8 games. Hm. Yeah, losing Miami from the calc would do it too.

by Aaron Schatz :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 9:13pm

Weighted DVOA actually includes the last 14 weeks but the big drops in strength occur with the game nine weeks ago and the game 13 weeks ago. For the Saints, that's the huge Dallas win and the Pats loss (where both teams had positive DVOA) with the 38-17 win over Miami disappearing entirely.

by Kristian :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 4:37am

Would it not be more logical to use a gradual scale rather than large drops at arbitrary points?

by BaronFoobarstein :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 4:51am

You don't know that it's arbitrary. You do whatever gives you numbers that yield the best predictions. If that's a nice gradual curve fine, if that's a staggered progression, that's fine too so long as you don't overfit.

by QCIC (not verified) :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 10:44am

I think the idea is that unless you have some really nifty theory why, something without a gradual curve is by definition overfitting. It is the archetype fo overfitting.

Why do results suddenly become less predictive after X weeks? Because our tiny sample set says so!

by Anonymousse (not verified) :: Wed, 01/08/2014 - 5:42pm

You don't change your methods to fit a correlation unless you understand why the correlation is causative.

Like the other poster says, this is definite overfitting to match what is most likely noise.

by Bruce Lamon :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 7:37pm

Wasn't there some commentary from Aaron a few years back that DVOA was actually slightly more predictive of post-season performance than Weighted DVOA?

by Kulko :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 3:37am

Yes I also think so, but it never had any change on the presentation on the website, which still tries to better fit common perception by using Weighted DVOA.

Thats not a problem if the real number is still somewhere to be found, but unfortunately standard DVOA disappeared completely by the postseason (I am not sure if this was always the case). Dear FO please ring it back.

by Burbman (not verified) :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 8:29pm

*tongue firmly planted in cheek*

WEI. DVOA clearly has a man crush on the Patriots, allowing them to move past three teams in a week in which they did not even play, nor did two of the other teams. Obviously teams who were not sitting on their sofas watching TV should have moved past the Pats, not the other way around.

by RickD :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 10:30pm

They had a really good bye week.

by Bobman :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:33am

Kudos tot he Pats; it always seems that when I sit around watching football, like they did, nothing good comes of it. Clearly I am in the wrong profession.

by Wikitorix (not verified) :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:39am

Not as good as the Seahawks. The Patriots improvement in Weighted DVOA is a little over half that of the Seahawks. 2.3% vs 4.2%

by Bobman :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:43am

Well, it WAS a great weekend in Seattle--sunny and clear, first day of skiing and I got home in time for the Colts game to boot! That must have helped the Seahawks.

by BigWoody (not verified) :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:45am

Yeah, but the Seahawks dropped in SB win odds. as did DEN.

by Todd S (not verified) :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 10:43am

Nice to see the Pats head into this playoff game against the Colts with momentum on their side.

by BigWoody (not verified) :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 9:32pm

CAR-SF going to be interesting game. Both basically equal in off. DVOA. CAR has good size edge in Def. DVOA and SF clearly better on special teams. HFA is difference in the game?

by BigWoody (not verified) :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 9:37pm

Also interesting that STL is now ahead of ARI. Again big ST difference.

by Anonymousxxx (not verified) :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:58pm

Arizona now hasn't played Carolina (at least in weighted DVOA), and St. Louis now hasn't played their first game against San Francisco.

It would have been nice to see Total DVOA (rather than weighted) in the lists. It would also be nice if the ST vs defense weightings made sense.

by IndigoAlcaeus (not verified) :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 9:48pm

New Orleans and Indianapolis are clearly ranked too low because they each beat their higher ranked opponents this weekend. Actually playing the game is way better than this. THE NINERS ARE GONNA GO ALL TEH WAY!

by Cythammer :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 10:50pm

On weeks when normal DVOA is being used to rank the teams, weighted DVOA is still listed in the tables. Why isn't regular DVOA included at all in these rankings?

by Paul R :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 11:31pm

The Chiefs will be happy to see they've moved up in the rankings.

by Tdk (not verified) :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 11:31pm

How does NE move up while not playing? I could see if it was the other teams playing worse on the weekend but Den didn't play and got passed.

by Insancipitory :: Mon, 01/06/2014 - 11:38pm

Such is the magic of the ineffable Tom Brady.

by Bobman :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:34am


by jebmak :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 2:53pm

Ha! It's been awhile.

by Bobman :: Wed, 01/08/2014 - 4:43am

Yeah. It got a little tiresome when it would pop up 50 times a thread (people, possibly including me, would wait to comment on a multiple of 12....) but it's fun to bring it up once every couple years. I remember apologizing to my wife in bed one night that I was not Tom Brady and I nearly died laughing. Her response: "Who? What's so funny?"

by Rick & Roll (not verified) :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 6:27am

How did Denver fall so far and New England rise so much.... Especially in odds to win SB?

I thought SDs domination would help them

by JIPanick :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 11:36am

NE drawing Indy may have helped them in the Super Bowl odds more than the DVOA changes did.

by Todd S (not verified) :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 10:49am

Read Aaron's comment (#11) and look at the New England schedule and Denver's schedule. Denver had favorable games fall out of the equation and New England had poor games fall out of the equation.

by BigWoody (not verified) :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:29am

Just noticed that the DEN-SD game is similar to CAR-SF (well, not really, but) DEN and SD have ended up pretty close in O-DVOA, Den is (much) better in D-DVOA and SD is markedly better in ST.

by Karl Cuba :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:37am

Is there a non weighted DVOA ranking?

by Will Allen :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:41am

At this rate of increase, by the time the Super Bowl is over, the Vikings will make the DVOA playoffs! Yee-haw!!!

See what happens when you don't play Christian Ponder?

by LionInAZ :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 6:34pm

And yet firing Schwartz only made the Lions worse...

by Will Allen :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 7:27pm

DVOA hates Schwartz. Ponder amuses it.

by Bobman :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:41am

What I find puzzling about the small chart of the H2H matches with and without opponent adjustments is, for example, the Colts/Chiefs: Colts O was 21% before adjustments and 29% after because the Chiefs D was pretty good. So far so good. In some other aspects, the adjustment did not change much or at all because the opponent was about average--Chiefs O vs Colts D which was ranked 16 (I assume)--so they are 22% both before and after adjustments.

But the ST did not change at all with adjustments, and I was under the impression KC was superb at #1 and Indy middling at #17. Therefore, shouldn't Indy's post-adjustment ST grade be higher than its pre-adjustment grade? I can understand why KC's grade would not change, since Indy's ST were ranted #17. Is it a small sample size issue--not enough ST plays to really register?

Any insight into this is appreciated. Thanks.

by Anonymous1 (not verified) :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 2:13am

I believe the special teams DVOA is not adjusted for opponent.

This seems to come up every year when Aaron posts the playoff DVOA tables.

by Bobman :: Wed, 01/08/2014 - 4:47am

Ah, thanks. Memory must be going. Or maybe I usually ignore ST play, like the Colts front office has for fifteen years....

by nickjarious (not verified) :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 1:55am

Just curious, does special teams weigh as much as off/def when determining overall rank? Can't say I agree with that if that's the case.

by Alternator :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 3:42am

Yes, but there's usually less of a difference between a top special teams team, and an average one, by about a factor of three. This results in special teams contributing, usually, about a third as much.

It's not a weighting issue, it's a deviation from average issue, though the two are often confused.

by anotherpatsfan :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 11:35am

I thought special teams DVOA was somehow calculated to have less weight that Off or Def, but you wind up with a number you can add to the other two to get total DVOA (off-def+st).

by An Onymous (not verified) :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 4:08am

Wait, the Patriots really have the second-best weighted offense in the NFL?

by MC2 :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 4:55am

That ranking is based mainly on the games when they had Gronk. During that time, they were truly excellent. The rest of the year, they have been average at best.

by Andrew Potter :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 6:09am

That's not quite true. There's a marked difference between the first and second halves of their season, with or without Gronkowski. Their worst five games of the regular season were all in Weeks 1-8. Gronkowski played in two of those (Weeks 7 and 8). Since their bye, their average offensive DVOA is 31.8%. Their average performance in the three games since Gronkowski was lost for the year isn't much below that: 27.4%, which would still rank second in season-long DVOA and first in weighted DVOA.

by RickD :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 7:48pm

They weren't only missing Gronk early in the season. After Week 1, they were also missing Amendola and Vereen, who are back. Also, LeGarrette Blount is playing much better recently than he was early in the season.

The offense that could only score 6 points at Cincy isn't there any more. Their last two victories were of comfortable margins, against Buffalo and Baltimore, who both have highly rated defenses.

by Bobman :: Wed, 01/08/2014 - 4:45am

Yeah, thanks, like I really needed to hear that!

by eaglesfan2541 :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 3:05pm

I find it interesting how the Saints are ranked lower than the Eagles after beating them. Also, the Saints are only ranked 1 lower than the Eagles in weighted offense DVOA and ranked 5 higher in defense DVOA, yet they're ranked 3 lower in overall DVOA. It's interesting how numbers work out. I'm surprised by the fact that the Eagles special teams DVOA is still the 24th highest in the league and not much worse after that terrible showing on Saturday night.

by RickD :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 7:52pm

Well, the numbers show the Saints having dominated the playoff game. Keep in mind that the DVOA weighs average over several games, not just the most recent one.

Don't get too confused by the fact that ordinal rankings do not average easily. Two teams can be very close in DVOA while being far apart by ordinal rank, and vice versa. The best way to use these charts is to focus on the actual DVOA values, while viewing the ordinal ranks as merely a useful way to sort the data.

by randplaty :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 8:31pm

Seems like DVOA thinks that the Chargers played a great game. Did they really play a great game? Or was it mostly just Dalton giving the game to them like most of the national media is saying.

by Perfundle :: Tue, 01/07/2014 - 9:12pm

I'm pretty sure SD's 23% Offensive VOA has nothing to do with Dalton in any way. They ran roughshod over the Bengals' defense.

by SSC28 (not verified) :: Thu, 01/09/2014 - 11:12am

Are CIN QB Dalton's inconsistency more of a responsibility of OC Gruden, or the QB coach? The question about being Gruden's problem is now moot (as it is announced he is going to WAS), but perhaps a reshuffling of the offensive staff may bring in a new QB coach who can control Andy's arm (and head) a bit better.

by N8- (not verified) :: Thu, 01/09/2014 - 2:52pm

I know the season is over for the Packers. I'm still wondering... How does the SF game compare to other games this season in Dvoa? Where can I find the game by game breakdown?

by jimbohead :: Thu, 01/09/2014 - 4:43pm

Detailed data is available in premium, i believe, or in next years FOA. Also, GB overall DVOA by week is in the NFC wildcard preview: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/game-previews/2014/nfc-wild-card-previe...

by Mitch (not verified) :: Sun, 01/12/2014 - 11:01am

Using this weighted version we find, Seattle -10.2, right near the spread, Denver -5, a lean to SD, Pats -10.4, a lean to Pats, Carolina -3.95, a lean to Carolina.

Using the end of season non weighted DVOA, 3 games were right on or near the spread, Carolina -4.88 which is the largest difference to the spread this playoffs to this point anyway.

DVOA really likes Carolina today.

by CeeBee (not verified) :: Mon, 01/13/2014 - 2:44pm

NYG DEF - #2


by ryan0071 :: Mon, 01/11/2016 - 5:27pm

I have been able in generating the robux generator which was unlimited and was provided very easily through which i enjoyed a lot in playing this game which allowed me full access and acquire the whole world in roblox. Thanks to the site which has provided the tobux generator which was highly safe and reliable to use which could be run on any platform.After grabbing this generator you will find playing this game much more interesting one and every one should play for the enjoyment.You must follow this link http://robloxfreerobuxgenerator.com/ for grabbing it.

by dare434 :: Tue, 04/26/2016 - 5:42am

great stuff is going on here, and for roblox cheats visit http://robloxhackandcheats.com/

by redmob :: Wed, 05/18/2016 - 6:50am
by andre43 :: Sun, 11/20/2016 - 6:36am
by cokings :: Tue, 01/10/2017 - 3:08pm

nice to know about it, i will support my team. and they are always win.
visit me : http://clashokhack.com/

by smrhack :: Tue, 02/07/2017 - 3:36am

please support our team to win this league.

visit me : http://smrhack.online/

by junsukiu :: Tue, 10/17/2017 - 11:26pm

I love this post it very nice and interesting post.I really enjoyed reading this article , thanks for sharing this article.

by Keirie :: Fri, 11/03/2017 - 1:48am

All Teams played well in that championship. Germany won 2014 FIFA World Cup championship.