# Richmond v Essendon — AFL Round 11 2026 AI Prediction by Alphr

## Full Time: Richmond 74 – 56 Essendon

_Richmond see off Essendon._

Half time: 49 – 34 · Alphr AI pre-game win probability: Richmond 42% / Essendon 58% · MCG · Fri, 22 May, 07:45 pm AEST

**Goal Kickers** — Richmond: Sam Cumming (8' 1st), Steely Green (16' ×2 Tipped ⚡), Jonty Faull (20'), Tom Lynch (52' ×2 Tipped ⚡), Mykelti Lefau (54' Tipped ⚡), Noah Roberts-Thomson (81' Tipped ⚡) · Essendon: Nate Caddy (10' ×2 Tipped ⚡), Archie May (13' ×3 Tipped ⚡), Zach Merrett (39'), Jye Caldwell (64')

### Match Winner — AI Prediction Market (resolved)

| Team | Pre-game AI win probability | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Essendon | 58% | Lost |
| Richmond | 42% | Won |

Model call: **Missed** · Margin: 5.3 predicted → 18 actual · Markets hit: 2/4

_AI win probability priced pre-game · Markets hit = core betting markets._

### Full-Time Report

**Richmond Tigers vs Essendon Bombers Prediction & Tips | AFL Round 11 2026**

_By Ben Dunlop · Published: 22 May 2026, 10:16 am · Last updated: 22 May 2026, 11:09 pm_

Richmond 74–56 Essendon in AFL Round 11 at MCG. Here's how the result stacked up against the model's call, with the win-probability story and where the value landed.

Richmond beat Essendon 74-56 at the MCG, and on the raw footy stats that scoreline undersells what Essendon actually did with the ball. The Bombers won disposals 392 to 353, marks 125 to 101, inside 50s 45 to 41, and hit-outs by an absurd 35 to 8. By most conventional measures they had more of the game. They still lost by 18.

The gap opened early and never really closed. Richmond led 29-14 at quarter time, a 15-point buffer, and took a near-identical 15-point lead into half time at 49-34. Essendon shaved a few points back in the third to trail by 12 at the three-quarter time mark, 58-46, but Richmond answered with the biggest term of the night, outscoring them 16-10 in the last to blow it back out to 18. Whatever hope Essendon had of running the margin down, Richmond shut the door in the final quarter rather than opening it.

Clearances tell you why. Richmond won that count 32-26 despite getting smashed at the ruck contest, which says the midfield brigade did the dirty work at ground level regardless of who was winning the taps. Tackles went the same way, 49 to 44 in Richmond's favour. Essendon could win the hit-out battle by 27 and still hand over first use of the ball more often than not. That's the sort of stat line that looks decisive on paper and turns out to be almost cosmetic.

Form lines going in had both sides under the pump. Richmond arrived on one win from their last five (LLWLL), averaging 72 points a game and conceding 110. Essendon were worse off again, winless in five (LLLLL), averaging 79.8 scored but leaking 121.2. Neither team's recent trend screamed 74 points, and Richmond's defence rating, 1108 to Essendon's 1041 pre-game, backed up here: whatever ball Essendon moved forward, Richmond made a lot of it count for less than it should have given the raw volume.

Alphr's model had this one wrong in the way that matters most. It gave Essendon 58% to win and had Richmond as 5.3-point favourites on the margin, an odd split that hedged both ways and still landed short. The actual margin was 18, more than three times the predicted number, and the model's combined total of 196 points was a long way off the 130 that actually went up on the board, out by 66.

**Scoring by Quarter**

| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | T |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Richmond | 29 | 20 | 9 | 16 | 74 |
| Essendon | 14 | 20 | 12 | 10 | 56 |

**Key Match Stats**

| Richmond | Stat | Essendon |
|---|---|---|
| 353 | Disposals | **392** |
| 108 | Contested poss. | **110** |
| **32** | Clearances | 26 |
| 41 | Inside 50s | **45** |
| 101 | Marks | **125** |
| 8 | Marks inside 50 | **10** |
| **49** | Tackles | 44 |
| 8 | Hit-outs | **35** |
| 59 | Intercepts | 59 |
| 75.3% | Disposal eff. | **76.3%** |

**Model Report Card**

Richmond defied the model's 58% prediction for Essendon, a notable result. The margin model missed here, predicting 5.3 but the actual margin was 18 points. The game's 130 points came in 66 points lower than the predicted 196. The model went 2/4 on this match. Richmond covered the 13.5-point line. The 1-39 margin band call landed.

_Official AFL match stats · Generated by Alphr's model_

### Edge Analysis — the model's pre-game markets

- **Head to Head:** Essendon to win @ $1.47 (edge -10.3%) — model probability 57.7% — result: LOST
- **Line / Spread:** Richmond +13.5 @ $1.89 (edge +18.8%) — result: WON
- **Margin Band:** Richmond 1-39 @ $3.30 (edge +0.0%) — result: WON
- **Total (Over/Under):** Over 167.5 @ $1.87 (edge +1.5%) — result: LOST
- Predicted margin: Richmond by 5 · Predicted total: 196

### Match Preview (pre-match read)

Essendon are the call at 58%, but Richmond stay live at 42%. The heaviest factor is the ratings gap: Essendon sit 99 ELO points clear, 1216 to 1117. Form leans Richmond's way: 1 from their last 5, against 0 for Essendon.

Essendon own the matchup too, leading 3 of 7 factors including ELO Difference, Midfield ELO and Scoring Form. The margin model has Richmond by 5.3, with the two sides combining for about 196. Lean Essendon, but it shapes as a genuine contest.

_Pre-match read · Alphr model_

### Recent Form (Last 5)

| Richmond | Stat | Essendon |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | Wins (Last 5) | 0.0 |
| 72.0pts | Avg Score | 79.8pts |
| 110.2pts | Avg Conceded | 121.2pts |
| -38.2pts | Avg Margin | -41.4pts |
| 350.0 | Disposals | 350.0 |
| 50.0 | Inside 50s | 50.0 |
| 60.0 | Tackles | 60.0 |
| 35.0 | Clearances | 35.0 |

### Form & History

_Last 5 games, oldest → newest._

| Team | Last 5 | Avg Pts |
|---|---|---|
| Richmond | R6 L · R7 L · R8 W · R9 L · R10 L | 72.0 |
| Essendon | R6 L · R7 L · R8 L · R9 L · R10 L | 79.8 |

### Positional Matchup

_Season-to-date production per game with league-wide attack/defence tiers (18 teams)._

**Forwards** (Key Forwards · Med/Mid Forwards)

|  | Richmond | Essendon |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 16th (weak) | 17th (weak) |
| Defence rank | 16th (weak) | 18th (weak) |
| Goals scored · conceded | 72 · 105 | 65 · 123 |
| Goal Assists | 3.9/g | 2.9/g |
| Disposals | 85/g | 75/g |
| Inside 50s | 16.3/g | 14.2/g |
| Marks Inside 50 | 8/g | 6.4/g |
| Disposal Efficiency | 69.4% | 67.8% |

**Midfield & Ruck** (Midfielders · Rucks)

|  | Richmond | Essendon |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 18th (weak) | 5th (strong) |
| Defence rank | 17th (weak) | 12th |
| Goals scored · conceded | 12 · 45 | 40 · 34 |
| Goal Assists | 2.3/g | 3.3/g |
| Disposals | 109/g | 132/g |
| Inside 50s | 18.4/g | 20.2/g |
| Marks Inside 50 | 1.1/g | 3/g |
| Disposal Efficiency | 70% | 74.1% |

**Defenders** (Key & Medium Defenders)

|  | Richmond | Essendon |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 7th | 5th (strong) |
| Defence rank | 7th | 12th |
| Goals scored · conceded | 10 · 7 | 11 · 9 |
| Goal Assists | 1/g | 2.2/g |
| Disposals | 133/g | 152/g |
| Inside 50s | 11.2/g | 13.1/g |
| Marks Inside 50 | 1.1/g | 1.5/g |
| Disposal Efficiency | 80.6% | 79.2% |

**Who scores on Essendon** — Forwards 5.45/g (lg 4.45) +22% · Key Forwards 4.29/g (lg 3.81) +13% · Defenders 1.27/g (lg 1.14) +11%
**Who scores on Richmond** — Rucks 0.68/g (lg 0.51) +33% · Key Forwards 4.79/g (lg 3.81) +26% · Midfielders 3/g (lg 2.5) +20%

_Goals conceded by position, last 3 seasons; positive = concedes above league average to that position._

### Goal Scorer History — Who Kicks The Goals

_Last 10 games, career record vs the opponent and at MCG. ⚡ = our AI backs them to score; 🎯 = our AI's first-goal pick. 🏉 = scored in this game. Goal % = share of games with a goal, last 10 weighted double vs the 30 prior — historical frequency, not a market price._

**Richmond** (team sheet)

| # | Player | Pos | 2026 | Last 10 | vs opp | Venue | Goal % | Alphr play | This game |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | Seth Campbell | FWD | 12 in 10g | 12/10g (0·3·0·0·1·2·2·3·1·0) | 0/3g | 24/29g | 58% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.44 AI 73% ✗ No goal | — |
| – | Steely Green | FWD | 10 in 10g | 10/10g (2·0·3·0·0·1·1·2·1·0) | 0/2g | 13/19g | 51% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.62 AI 66% ✓ Scored | 🏉 16' 26' |
| – | Mykelti Lefau | KF | 9 in 8g | 11/10g (2·0·1·0·0·4·0·2·1·1) | 2/1g | 11/11g | 66% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.40 AI 77% ✓ Scored | 🏉 54' |
| – | Tom Lynch | KF | 9 in 6g | 17/10g (1·1·3·3·2·0·1·1·3·2) | 22/10g | 160/73g | 86% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.08 AI 89% ✓ Scored; 🎯 First Goal $9.00 AI 8% ✗ Not first | 🏉 52' 70' |
| – | Jonty Faull | KF | 6 in 9g | 6/10g (0·0·1·0·0·0·1·3·0·1) | 2/2g | 5/13g | 46% | — | 🏉 20' |
| – | Noah Balta | DEF | 6 in 9g | 6/10g (0·0·0·0·0·1·0·3·1·1) | 1/6g | 27/61g | 34% | — | — |
| – | Tim Taranto | MID | 4 in 8g | 4/10g (0·0·0·0·2·0·1·0·0·1) | 8/10g | 31/54g | 38% | — | — |
| – | Jack Ross | MID | 3 in 10g | 3/10g (0·0·0·0·0·2·0·0·0·1) | 1/5g | 7/55g | 16% | — | — |
| – | Noah Roberts-Thomson | FWD | 2 in 1g | 2/1g (2) | 0/0g | 0/0g | 100% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.96 AI 67% ✓ Scored | 🏉 81' |
| – | Sam Cumming | MID | 2 in 4g | 2/4g (1·0·1·0) | 0/0g | 2/2g | 50% | — | 🏉 8' |
| – | Tyler Sonsie | FWD | 2 in 8g | 2/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·1·0) | 1/3g | 4/22g | 22% | — | — |
| – | Jayden Short | DEF | 1 in 9g | 1/10g (0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/11g | 19/107g | 10% | — | — |
| – | Nick Vlastuin | DEF | 1 in 9g | 1/10g (0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 2/18g | 17/144g | 4% | — | — |
| – | Ben Miller | DEF | 0 in 10g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/4g | 7/45g | 0% | — | — |
| – | Jacob Hopper | MID | 0 in 9g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 3/10g | 8/45g | 12% | — | — |
| – | James Trezise | DEF | 0 in 6g | 1/10g (0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/1g | 2/17g | 10% | — | — |
| – | Jasper Alger | FWD | 0 in 1g | 2/5g (0·2·0·0·0) | 0/0g | 2/2g | 20% | — | — |
| – | Luke Trainor | DEF | 0 in 5g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/2g | 1/14g | 3% | — | — |
| – | Nathan Broad | DEF | 0 in 9g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/10g | 0/98g | 0% | — | — |
| – | Oliver Hayes-Brown | RUC | 0 in 4g | 0/4g (0·0·0·0) | 0/0g | 0/1g | 0% | — | — |
| – | Patrick Retschko | MID | 0 in 5g | 0/5g (0·0·0·0·0) | 0/0g | 0/2g | 0% | — | — |
| – | Sam Grlj | DEF | 0 in 9g | 0/9g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/0g | 0/4g | 0% | — | — |

**Essendon** (team sheet)

| # | Player | Pos | 2026 | Last 10 | vs opp | Venue | Goal % | Alphr play | This game |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | Nate Caddy | KF | 19 in 9g | 20/10g (1·1·4·1·2·1·3·3·2·2) | 2/3g | 12/14g | 76% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.02 AI 88% ✓ Scored; 🎯 First Goal $7.50 AI 8% ✗ Not first | 🏉 10' 47' |
| – | Archer May | KF | 11 in 8g | 12/10g (1·0·0·0·2·2·2·0·3·2) | 1/1g | 3/5g | 60% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.12 AI 79% ✓ Scored; 🎯 First Goal $10.00 AI 6% ✗ Not first | 🏉 13' 57' 81' |
| – | Xavier Duursma | MID | 8 in 10g | 8/10g (2·0·0·0·2·2·0·0·2·0) | 5/9g | 11/21g | 44% | — | — |
| – | Thomas Edwards | FWD | 7 in 5g | 10/7g (3·0·2·2·2·0·1) | 0/0g | 3/2g | 71% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.30 AI 73% ✗ No goal | — |
| – | Jade Gresham | FWD | 6 in 5g | 7/10g (0·0·1·0·0·1·3·1·1·0) | 20/12g | 34/29g | 50% | — | — |
| – | Jye Caldwell | MID | 5 in 9g | 6/10g (1·1·1·1·1·0·1·0·0·0) | 0/5g | 15/30g | 46% | — | 🏉 64' |
| – | Sam Durham | MID | 5 in 10g | 5/10g (2·1·0·0·1·0·1·0·0·0) | 4/6g | 14/34g | 40% | — | — |
| – | Sullivan Robey | FWD | 5 in 6g | 5/6g (0·2·0·1·0·2) | 0/0g | 2/2g | 50% | — | — |
| – | Zach Merrett | MID | 5 in 10g | 5/10g (1·0·1·0·1·1·0·1·0·0) | 7/17g | 35/82g | 36% | — | 🏉 39' |
| – | Kyle Langford | DEF | 4 in 10g | 4/10g (0·1·0·0·0·0·2·1·0·0) | 8/10g | 51/52g | 56% | — | — |
| – | Archer Day-Wicks | FWD | 3 in 8g | 3/10g (0·0·0·0·1·0·2·0·0·0) | 0/0g | 2/4g | 22% | — | — |
| – | Archie Perkins | FWD | 3 in 6g | 5/10g (0·2·0·0·1·1·0·0·1·0) | 2/6g | 18/34g | 44% | — | — |
| – | Darcy Parish | MID | 2 in 9g | 2/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·1) | 4/9g | 22/54g | 18% | — | — |
| – | Lachlan Blakiston | DEF | 2 in 10g | 2/10g (0·0·1·0·0·0·0·1·0·0) | 0/1g | 0/6g | 16% | — | — |
| – | Andrew McGrath | DEF | 1 in 10g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0) | 0/12g | 6/58g | 6% | — | — |
| – | Archie Roberts | DEF | 1 in 10g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/2g | 1/12g | 11% | — | — |
| – | Mason Redman | DEF | 1 in 4g | 2/10g (0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0) | 0/9g | 7/45g | 18% | — | — |
| – | Ben McKay | DEF | 0 in 8g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/6g | 0/20g | 0% | — | — |
| – | Jacob Farrow | DEF | 0 in 8g | 0/8g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/0g | 0/2g | 0% | — | — |
| – | Jaxon Prior | DEF | 0 in 9g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/5g | 0/12g | 2% | — | — |
| – | Matt Guelfi | FWD | 0 in 2g | 5/10g (0·0·0·1·1·0·3·0·0·0) | 1/9g | 22/35g | 54% | — | — |
| – | Nick Bryan | RUC | 0 in 2g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/1g | 1/7g | 6% | — | — |
| – | Zach Reid | DEF | 0 in 10g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/3g | 0/11g | 0% | — | — |

### Player Props — Disposal Counts

_Bookmaker disposal lines vs our model's read. ⚡ = the validated under signal (model ≥10 points past the price) — everything else is market intel, not a tip. The ⚡ under signal's verified record: 57.7% of 1,278 flags in 2025._

**Richmond**

| Player | Line | Under | AI Under | Actual |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jayden Short | 25.5 | $1.87 | 53% | 30 ✗ |
| Tim Taranto | 25.5 | $1.88 | 56% | 30 ✗ |
| Jack Ross | 24.5 | $1.88 | 59% | 24 ✓ |
| Jacob Hopper | 23.5 | $1.91 | 50% | 20 ✓ |
| James Trezise ⚡ Under | 19.5 | $1.80 | 76% | 19 ✓ |
| Patrick Retschko | 18.5 | $1.87 | 34% | 27 ✗ |
| Nick Vlastuin ⚡ Under | 18.5 | $1.89 | 70% | 16 ✓ |
| Seth Campbell ⚡ Under | 17.5 | $1.84 | 73% | 22 ✗ |
| Sam Grlj | 16.5 | $1.87 | 56% | 13 ✓ |
| Tyler Sonsie | 15.5 | $1.89 | 47% | 22 ✗ |

**Essendon**

| Player | Line | Under | AI Under | Actual |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Archie Roberts ⚡ Under | 33.5 | $2.00 | 71% | 33 ✓ |
| Zach Merrett ⚡ Under | 30.5 | $1.91 | 65% | 36 ✗ |
| Darcy Parish | 26.5 | $1.88 | 58% | 41 ✗ |
| Sam Durham ⚡ Under | 24.5 | $1.83 | 77% | 6 ✓ |
| Andrew McGrath | 21.5 | $1.91 | 57% | 6 ✓ |
| Jye Caldwell | 21.5 | $1.89 | 62% | 5 ✓ |
| Mason Redman | 19.5 | $1.87 | 31% | 30 ✗ |
| Sullivan Robey ⚡ Under | 18.5 | $1.87 | 80% | 23 ✗ |
| Jacob Farrow | 17.5 | $1.89 | 60% | 18 ✗ |
| Xavier Duursma | 16.5 | $1.91 | 52% | 14 ✓ |

### Prediction Breakdown — Pure Alpha Model

**Team ELO Ratings** — Richmond 1117 · Essendon 1216 · ELO difference: 99 in favour of Essendon

**Positional Matchups** — lineup ELO by unit

| Unit | Richmond | Essendon | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Midfield | 1099 (best 1475) | 1172 (best 1385) | Essendon +73 |
| Forwards | 986 (best 1491) | 981 (best 1454) | Richmond +4 |
| Defence | 1108 (best 1589) | 1041 (best 1451) | Richmond +68 |
| Ruck | 1066 (best 1392) | 1103 (best 1323) | Essendon +36 |

**Key Prediction Factors** — what the model weighted most

| # | Factor | Weight | Favours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ELO Difference | 14.0% | Essendon |
| 2 | Midfield ELO | 11.0% | Essendon |
| 3 | Recent Win Rate | 10.0% | Richmond |
| 4 | Forward Line ELO | 9.0% | — |
| 5 | Defensive ELO | 8.0% | Richmond |
| 6 | Scoring Form | 8.0% | Essendon |
| 7 | Venue Advantage | 7.0% | — |

**Model Confidence: 58%** — Essendon predicted to win by 5 points · Predicted total: 196 pts

**Record:** 2/4 predictions correct

**Prediction by Alphr** (https://alphr.com.au) — free AI predictions for every AFL, NRL & Super League match, published before kick-off and never edited. Verified track record: https://alphr.com.au/accuracy

---
Canonical URL: https://alphr.com.au/afl/match/2026-r11-richmond-v-essendon
RSS feed: https://alphr.com.au/feed.xml
Prediction JSON API: today https://alphr.com.au/api/predictions/today · this week https://alphr.com.au/api/predictions/weekly
Markdown view for AI agents. Machine-readable index: https://alphr.com.au/llms.txt · full reference: https://alphr.com.au/llms-full.txt
All predictions are published before kick-off and verified after full time. Free, no login. 18+ gamble responsibly (AU).
Last updated: 2026-05-22 13:09 UTC (latest tip update)