I believe he's a touch over-rated. Let's starts with some stats.
The only years his strike rate has been below 60 are 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005. Those are also the only years his bowling average has gone below 30. 2008 was a steady year for him, but apart from that, he's been consistently non-threatening for the last 4 years.
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
Infact, from 2005 onwards, his strike rate has ballooned to 70.8. And it's not like he's become more economical, as his rate has gone up from a career rate of 2.83 to 2.96.
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
In the same time frame, keeping a criteria of atleast 50 wickets, Harbhajan's strike rate is only better than Panesar, Vettori and Paul Harris.
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
He is ranked 8th out of 11 spinners to have qualified within that time-frame. And it's not like his has the best economy rate in that time, he's ranked sixth in that regard, behind Panesar, Vettori and Harris.
So it's quite clear Harbhajan has slipped into a 'containing' bowler role, but isn't doing a great job at it. Of all the bowlers in that list who's strike rate is above 70, only Harris and Vettori maintain a regular spot in their sides. Harris is the only bowler who maintains a spot in the side as a containing bowler, and that's because he's got such a fantastic pace attack to back him up.
Unfortunately, India does not have that luxury (yet). So why are we still backing a bowler like Harbhajan to help us win matches, when we've got better options like Murali Kartik waiting in the wings?
The only years his strike rate has been below 60 are 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005. Those are also the only years his bowling average has gone below 30. 2008 was a steady year for him, but apart from that, he's been consistently non-threatening for the last 4 years.
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
Infact, from 2005 onwards, his strike rate has ballooned to 70.8. And it's not like he's become more economical, as his rate has gone up from a career rate of 2.83 to 2.96.
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
In the same time frame, keeping a criteria of atleast 50 wickets, Harbhajan's strike rate is only better than Panesar, Vettori and Paul Harris.
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
He is ranked 8th out of 11 spinners to have qualified within that time-frame. And it's not like his has the best economy rate in that time, he's ranked sixth in that regard, behind Panesar, Vettori and Harris.
So it's quite clear Harbhajan has slipped into a 'containing' bowler role, but isn't doing a great job at it. Of all the bowlers in that list who's strike rate is above 70, only Harris and Vettori maintain a regular spot in their sides. Harris is the only bowler who maintains a spot in the side as a containing bowler, and that's because he's got such a fantastic pace attack to back him up.
Unfortunately, India does not have that luxury (yet). So why are we still backing a bowler like Harbhajan to help us win matches, when we've got better options like Murali Kartik waiting in the wings?