South Africa are probably the greatest team in the history of the World Cup.

It's not because they have won back-to-back tournaments, even though there were 14 players in the matchday 23 that were involved in Japan four years ago.

It's the nature of how they have played.

To get out of a difficult pool, which included Ireland and Scotland, and then defeat hosts France in the quarter-final, England in the semi-final and New Zealand in the final, is some achievement.

They have won the World Cup by beating the best nations and it was truly remarkable.

The All Blacks may have had better individual players when they won in 2011 and 2015, but I would go with South Africa as a better team.

I say that because both the game and the competition are very different to what they were 12 years ago.

If you go back to 2015, how many teams realistically were going to win it? I just don't think it was anywhere near as competitive.

New Zealand also went back-to-back and were a great side but I don't think they were tested anywhere near as much as South Africa have been in this competition.

What makes this Springbok side so special?

It's their unwavering desire to push the boundaries and do whatever it takes to win.

There have been moments over the past six years where director of rugby Rassie Erasmus has done things that are unacceptable, but you learn from those mistakes and he never, ever stops trying to work out where he can push things.

The detail of the coaching staff around the pitch during the game, analysing everything, is NFL-like.

It's like a designated team to watch what the opposition are doing and to get the message on to say 'jump here' or 'run this call'.

I know that may slightly take away the responsibility from the players on the pitch but it's about winning.

I think a lot of teams around the world have gone into the mode of 'we have loads of caps' and 'our families are very proud of us' and 'we love playing for our country'.

But the Springboks have that steely, selfish attitude that is needed to win at the very highest level.

Maybe some of those traits are not widely adored but they don't seem to care about that. They love their nation, their team-mates and their families but my god do they want to win.

Did referee Wayne Barnes and his team get it right?

I was fearful that the Sam Cane high tackle on Jesse Kriel was going to be upgraded from a yellow to a red card. You were really battling to find mitigation, and in a showpiece event, you have to be very careful.

If you do not make that a reference for how not to tackle, there will be millions of rugby players around the world thinking that is all right and then rugby takes a backward step with player welfare.

I think the officials got it right, but in the same breath with Siya Kolisi's tackle on Ardie Savea - a yellow card that stayed as a yellow - I was really struggling to find the mitigation from the clips I saw.

If it's that close, you have to implement the same reasoning for Cane. I don't think anyone would have quibbled at all. You could argue both cases were the same, and both cases could have been yellow, but New Zealand got punished.

You're taking about the two best teams in the world, where going down to 14 men makes an enormous difference.

When Kolisi went to the bin, it was a much more even contest. The All Blacks were playing wide a lot and for that 10 minutes everything started to click and the momentum had shifted significantly.

Then you saw this wave of relief when the South African coaching staff were high-fiving Kolisi after he was cleared to go back on. It gave South Africa an enormous boost, the green wall came up and New Zealand ran themselves into a standstill.

The All Blacks strangely fuelled the Springbok fire with how they were playing by passing wide in those greasy conditions.

They would going four or five phases but lose yards and then have to go aerially on the retreat. They were going for the corners with easy penalties and they should have been going for points.

Ordinarily, New Zealand could hit the corners and score the try but it's a final and it's South Africa, and you have to change the option.

Overall review of France 2023?

The quality of rugby was outstanding.

There were a number of games that felt like a final, and there was quality from the beginning with France v New Zealand on the opening night.

It was entertainment from the very top all the way through to watching Chile and Portugal.

Usually we have to wait until the knockouts to see that rugby but it was genuinely from the off. I know there were issues around the draw but, from a rugby perspective, it was mentally tiring and an emotional rollercoaster of adrenaline because of the games you were watching.

In a strong tournament, England produced a solid campaign.

When you're in a semi-final, you want to be in the final, but reflecting on where that team was and the adversity they have been through, I think a good performance in the semi and a third-place finish is positive.

I'm not convinced there is a gap between the northern and southern hemisphere sides.

France or Ireland could have easily won their quarter-finals with a bounce of the ball. What I would say, though, is that the way the South Africa coaching staff push the boundaries needs to be looked at by other countries.

There has to be a shift in the end goal and what you want to get out of international rugby. The Springboks' end goal is very much aligned to the World Cup.

There will be some ups and downs along the way but that is all they are focused on. Other nations can get wrapped up in what they think the media want to hear - but those top countries really don't care. They just want to win.

Matt Dawson was speaking to BBC Sport's Mantej Mann.