It was correct, but dishonest. Your argument was that Zaheer's injury woes were overplayed; you then selectively used the facts to back up your case. So what if he's only missed one home Test in 2 years through injury? You yourself said that Zaheer's value is on away tours, and he's missed 10 of the last 13 away Tests that India have played in the last year or so due to a wide catalogue of injuries. Surely that's a) more relevant given Zaheer's importance and b) more relevant given that he's not missed a chunk of cricket with one injury.
He's had recurring ankle problems over the last 4 years that have ruled him out of the World Twenty20 in 2007, 3 Tests in Australia last time you toured there, a home series against South Africa, the tour of the West Indies and which will now keep him out for the next 4 months. He's also twice done his shoulder, forcing him to miss the Champions Trophy in 2009 and the Sri Lanka series in 2010, and twice done his hamstring in the last year which kept him out of the first Test in South Africa and ****ed up his series here.
Sure, the Indian management have tried to wrap him in cotton wool by resting him for meaningless ODIs, but the evidence points to him getting injuries no matter how much cotton wool you wrap him in. He's broken down far too often in the last 4 years, and particularly in the last 2, for any of the stuff you're spouting to make sense. You're either in denial over Zaheer, or you simply don't appreciate injuries properly enough to comment.
Zaheer Khan might well come back from this bout of surgery and have a fine 3 years afterwards. All the evidence of the last 2 years suggest that that's about as likely as me leading England's attack in Australia 2 years from now.
