Doesn't really make sense since he's not at the end of his career. And he hasn't even won the league yet.
Probably best not to discuss a sport you clearly know nothing about. Gareth Edwards is widely recognised as being the greatest rugby player of all time. He retired from international rugby in 1978, with the first World Cup being held in 1987 so he didn't exactly have much chance to win it.
Well actually I do know very well who Gareth Edwards is. Try reading what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote.
What is your point then? That coaching a World Cup winning side through boring, negative rugby is a greater achievement than being the greatest rugby player ever?
Part of the rationale for awarding these honours to sports figure is that they have brought glory and international prestige to the UK. Merely being a great player, no matter how good you are, is not enough. The fact that Clive Woodward won a World Cup makes all the difference. The fact that Gareth Edwards didn't have a chance to win one is unfortunate but doesn't change the situation.
I'm not saying who should or shouldn't have one, but it's really the wrong way to view it IMO. Edwards won seven 5 nations championships and 3 grand slams. He was also on the 1971 Lions tour to New Zealand, the only time a Lions team has ever been victorious over there and something Woodward was utterly humiliated in his attempt to achieve in 2005, and the all conquering 1974 Lions tour of S Africa. Coaching the winners of the World Cup really pales in comparison.
All of Woodward's achievements are down to Martin Johnson. No Martin Johnson, and Woodward's another failed rugby coach. Ask an England player of the time, and they'll say that Woodward was a complete quack and that the real leader was Martin Johnson. All the time Woodward is talking about expansive rugby, England are playing a forward-based game. Gee, who do you think would be more responsible for that, one of the greatest locks of all-time or an ex-centre? If Woodward's coaching skills were responsible for 2003, they mysteriously disappeared by the next season, when he got humiliated by Ireland at Twickenham, and certainly were invisible by the Lions tour, which was the most atrociously run and managed tour in the history of British and Irish rugby. The Tour from Hell was child's play compared to that. His receiving a knighthood is frankly an insult to the honours system and should be used as a guide to when to give a sportsman a gong. Paul McCartney waits 40 years to get his, while Woodward gets his in the middle of his career. I'm certain people's opinions of Paul McCartney aren't changing, but Woodward's been exposed as possibly the least deserving knight ever. The sad bit is we'll be having this discussion again in under 10 years time when David Beckham is honoured for services to tabloid front pages.
Actually I think Paul McCartney's an idiot who shouldn't be seen in public anymore because he does nothing but embarass himself.