Warren Gatland Rugby analyst: South Africa deserved to win the World Cup. They were the only team to go through the tournament unbeaten and in the final merited their victory, albeit in a closely fought encounter where there was little to choose between the teams.

Both the Springboks and England opted for a territorial based game, largely reliant on accurate kicking and hard chasing. It placed a premium on intelligent punting and to be fair, the respective defences coped well for large periods of the match. In the end victory was probably decided by a couple of officiating calls.

I thought Alain Rolland did well in general and in respect to the Mark Cueto try that wasn't, the decision wasn't his. However, following Matthew Tait's superb break, Schalk Burger was extremely fortunate to escape a yellow card. He came in from the side and deliberately killed the ball a couple of metres from his own line.

His actions denied England the quick ball that would have allowed Cueto to stroll over untouched as the South African defence would not have been able to realign in time. Given where the offence was committed and the fact it equated to a professional foul, Burger's actions merited greater censure.

The English were awarded a penalty but in my view the offence merited a harsher punishment. The other major talking points in the aftermath revolved around Rolland's decision to award South Africa a penalty for blocking - Francois Steyn converted from long range - yet denying England a similar award when the losers arguably had an even more cast-iron case for a similar decision.

It was a six-point turnaround and in the context of the final, it had a major impact on the result. If the English hadn't suffered the rough edge of the officiating with regard to the decisions it would have meant a six-point game going into the final 15 minutes and that certainly would have changed the complexion of the match.

South Africa, buoyed by the fact that they enjoyed a two-score lead, were able to adopt a more conservative approach as the minutes ticked away. The English, in contrast, adopted touchline to touchline patterns but were unable to penetrate the Springbok cover.

Quite apart from disciplined defence, I thought Jonny Wilkinson played far too deep and this meant that the first contact point when South African tacklers met English ball carriers was often 15 to 20 metres behind where Brian Ashton's team had initially won the ball. This often stifled momentum and allowed the winners to scramble effectively.

The South African lineout was absolutely brilliant, superbly marshalled by Victor Matfield, and it was certainly one of the main reasons why the Springboks were able to thwart English ambition, pilfering seven or eight against the throw.

I'm not sure if Eddie Jones was the prime mover but South Africa adopted a hugely negative attitude to the scrum, a gambit that had all the hallmarks of the Australian approach.

They were really disruptive in this facet of the game. Normally the Springboks are aggressive in the scrum, going in straight and taking on their opponents but that wasn't the way they approached it in the final. They were lucky not to be penalised on a couple of occasions.

At one point, England were awarded a scrum five metres from their own line, but the Springboks spun it round and ended up getting the put-in. I suppose on the day they just got more of those 50/50 calls. When a match is this tight - both teams opted for an approach that didn't incorporate too many risks - with so few penalties, each one has a massive impact on the outcome.

I was very impressed with the manner in which the South Africans launched their attacking patterns, particularly from the lineout: they often took the ball off the top and then came up hard and flat and that guaranteed serious yardage. It meant they had the impetus going into contact and pretty much always got over the gain line.

They were very few outstanding individual performances that would linger long in the memory.

Fourie du Preez confirmed his status as the best halfback in the tournament. He was equally adept in attack and defence, kicking, running or passing. The South African backrow edged that particular contest while there was a solidity to their general game, the scrum notwithstanding.

Simon Shaw, who has enjoyed a very good tournament, had another very good game in the final.

He has consistently reached a very high level of performance and I thought his work-rate and overall impact was once again conspicuous.

In the build-up to the game I referred to the need for everything to go right for England if they were to retain their title. It didn't but there was an integrity and great work ethic to their performance.

South Africa were never forced to raise their game beyond a certain level and with that cushion on the scoreboard could afford to pursue a more limited game plan, devoid of risk.

In the end South Africa are worthy champions while England will take a great consolation from a stunning transformation that almost realised another World Cup crown.