New Zealand v South Africa rivalry: 'We may have taken the game a bit too seriously'

The sight of New Zealand and South Africa battling it out for world supremacy - albeit in Paris rather than in the usual surrounds of Loftus Versfeld or Eden Park - will carry a great deal of historical resonance.

For most of the 20th century, the winner of the intermittent series' between the pair was regarded as the de-facto world champion. Down south, at any rate.

"Back in the amateur era, it was kind of like a heavyweight boxing title," says New Zealand rugby writer Jamie Wall.

"Whoever won those series between the All Blacks and the Springboks was unofficially the world champions. So it's quite a nice bit of symmetry that they meet again in the World Cup final. Because when they used to meet in the old days, it was seen as that - bear in mind this is a very New Zealand-South Africa-centric view.

"For us as New Zealanders, it's the most important opponent we have. It's the one game where you really don't know what's going to happen. You can take the the All Blacks lead-in form and the Springboks lead-in form and it doesn't really matter because they turn into different teams when they play each other."

Rugby fans who grew up in the 1980s and 90s may have been inclined to think of New Zealand-Australia as the primary rivalry in the southern hemisphere, due to geographic proximity and the latter's uncommon strength at the time.

But the Wallabies as a powerful outfit is a relatively modern phenomenon. [Prior to the 1980s, Ireland - "not regarded as a threat" by either the All Blacks or the Boks - had a positive head-to-head record against Australia, which tells us enough.]

It was New Zealand-South Africa that was the grudge match and the blue riband fixture.

Several dates stick in the mind, South Africa's win in New Zealand in