Draymond Green is a good example of this. Obviously very talented, but the flailing around is clearly designed to draw fouls he shouldn't otherwise get, and niggle or even injure other players.

Conklin's past incidents are in a similar boat IMO.

Martin just plays hard. Nothing unsportsmanlike about his attitude, I don't think. Doubt he knows any other way to be honest.

I was using Martin as an example of "clean" consistently illegal/questionable play without malicious intent ( is there such a thing ?)

I agree 95% with you on Martin, the other 5% is basically not the niggle but the holding/grabbing - mainly because the refs let him ( and some other guards) get away with it.

So that's why hes not on my list. ;)

I'd look at Hire but IMO his talent level is not really high enough, his niggle helps keep him on a roster, he probably can't do it on talent alone.

Blackmore INHO would not be a contributor of a GF win on talent. Did not see a lot of him as i don't think he was in the league for long.

Vlahov would ( and did)contribute to a GF win, but i don't remember him being particularly dirty, perhaps playing a lot with Fisher meant he did not have to do it himself.

how could you leave out James Harden, Isaac?

Talented offensively but waaay to focussed on milking the refs (which is why I can't stand him).

For me- Aaron Trahair seems to always pop up in these conversations. Seems talented, but looked cruisy and lazy as shit

Aaron Trahair - was not a niggle/intentional foul guy

Heal - truely had a lot of talent - he was/is a dick, could not stick with the NBA, and was considerably less impact-full as a euro player than he was made out to be, just how much of that was due to his "me against everyone else, by any means I can get away with" attitude actually holding back his talent is what I'm putting up for debate. The talent was clearly there, BUT - was it held back by his Dickness - eg always running into other peoples' fights to inflame the situation, hold/grabbing on D etc , consistent $h1T talk-this was Kruger behaviour - but he had no tallent to waste because of it, its heal behaviour + he had talent that perhaps could have been better used.

Thats a question , not a statement.

I don't know that Liz is dirty , an instigator of ignorantly petulant behaviors, a person that underdeveloped their own talent ( eg trahair) - probably yes to both, but a regular spitfull intentional fouler ? not so much IMO.

off - topic but - does anyone have a figure on how many perth fans can read ?

and hows their numeracy - 6 our of 10 is not a high score on the ol' dirt meter.

Depends on how narrowly you're defining your pet peeve.
And what you're measuring it against?

Personally, I'm tired of people selectively re-interpreting what they see on the court. Yes, technically, basketball is a "non-contact" sport. In practice, its not completely. That doesn't mean a player is "dirty" just because they play for a team you dislike.
Frankly, you lose any credibility when you name Martin, one of the most universally respected players in the league. He certainly didn't make it to the Olympics by being dirty.

Ray Gordon would have to be one of the prime examples of a "dirty" players, but he doesn't really fit your criteria because he was a talentless hack.

Guys that IMHO are wasting their talent, are those that are good enough to be great players, but constantly play for the foul. One of MY pet peeves is guys who drive to the bucket, but go for the foul first instead ofn the basket. (And yes, that seems to be a Gleeson doctrine, I'm not a fan.) The other is of course flopping.
Potentially the most annoying (IMHO) exponent of this is Ogilvy. He's big enough to hold out most players, but too often instead of holding his ground, he flops.
Goulding is another, he's a great player, an absolute game-winner, and should be admired by everyone, except for his flopping.

I actually like Redhage, he's on of my favourite Cats. Some of his flopping makes me cringe, but he has also made a career often playing against bigger guys, so I'm not sure you could class that as a waste of talent.

Yes, technically, basketball is a "non-contact" sport.

Any reason why you keep referring to Redhage as Redhauge?

I would be including Petrie, Worthington, Dalton, Ervin, and Robbins on that list somewhere. Redhage and Worthington are 2 of the best players in the the NBL at getting under their opponents skin. I loved watching those two go head to head against each other in their prime.

I wouldn't say that any of the players mentioned on this thread would be a waste of talent though.

Wagstaff

Redhage , sorry , miss spell.

My original thing was not about the flopping, else Wagstaff would be right up there. In anycase that's a skill set that came out out of actually taking a charge, but the refs not calling it unless you fell down, it doesn't put another player into physical danger of an injury.

it was about perhaps putting more mental effort into being "dirty tough" and an irritating Dick, rather than making the most of their own "clean" skills.

Gordon was not a totally talented hack, but that's just my opinion.If you classify him as one then he's not the type I was thinking of.


Basketball was never no-contact at least in Oz since the early 70's

20 years ago at a physio conference I had heard the basketball level of contact described as "medium and strong contact" but non-grabbing and non-collision.

Ice hockey was high contact with high collision and low grabbing ( they wear gloves FCS ! )

NFL was high contact and high-collision with high strength and high-grabbing

AFL was medium-high contact with medium collision and medium grabbing but high strength.

Netball was no-contact and no-collision and no-grabbing.

Oh and basketball was also "low- impact" while NFL, AFL and Rugby were all "high impact", soccer was "non-impact" and aledgedly non-grabbing.