# Collingwood v Melbourne — AFL Round 13 2026 AI Prediction by Alphr

## Full Time: Collingwood 75 – 83 Melbourne

_Melbourne rally to sink Collingwood._

Half time: 39 – 37 · Alphr AI pre-game win probability: Collingwood 57% / Melbourne 43% · MCG · Mon, 08 June, 03:15 pm AEST

**Goal Kickers** — Collingwood: Nick Daicos (11' ×2), Jordan de Goey (14' ×2), Daniel McStay (20' ×2 Tipped ⚡), Mitch Podhajski (23'), Jack Buller (91' Tipped ⚡), Final quarter (30m 28s)Jack Buller (70'), Angus Anderson (86') · Melbourne: Kysaiah Pickett (8' ×2 1st Tipped ⚡), Harry Petty (17' ×2), Luker Kentfield (59' Tipped ⚡), Bayley Fritsch (83' ×3 Tipped ⚡), Harvey Langford (92'), Paddy Cross (89')

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

| Team | Pre-game AI win probability | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Collingwood | 57% | Lost |
| Melbourne | 43% | Won |

Model call: **Missed** · Margin: 6.0 predicted → 8 actual · Markets hit: 1/4

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

### Full-Time Report

**Collingwood Magpies vs Melbourne Demons Prediction & Tips | AFL Round 13 2026**

_By Ben Dunlop · Published: 7 June 2026, 03:57 pm · Last updated: 8 June 2026, 06:17 pm_

Collingwood 75–83 Melbourne in AFL Round 13 at MCG. Here's how the result stacked up against the model's call, with the win-probability story and where the value landed.

Collingwood led at every change until the one that mattered. Quarter time it was 26-22, half time 39-37, three-quarter time 60-55, all Collingwood. Then Melbourne scored 28 to Collingwood's 15 in the last quarter and walked out with an 83-75 win. That's the whole story in one sentence, but the how of it is worth a look.

Melbourne's ruck work was the loudest number on the sheet. 52 hit-outs to 23 is not a contest, it's a mismatch, and it fed directly into the shift Melbourne needed. More first use of the ball let their bigger marking game do its thing, 87 marks to 79 and 13 inside 50 to 11. Collingwood had the ball more overall, 383 disposals to 362, but Melbourne made better use of the territory when it counted, going 58 inside 50s to 54 despite fewer touches.

Collingwood actually won the grunt-work categories. 39 clearances to 34, 132 contested possessions to 128, 68 tackles to 60, and a slightly better disposal efficiency at 73.1 to 72.9. On paper that reads like the side doing more of the hard yards. It just didn't hold up where it mattered, at the other end, where Melbourne's ruck dominance and higher mark count turned pressure into scoreboard pressure late.

The pre-match positional ratings actually lined up with what showed up in the last quarter. Melbourne rated stronger everywhere, midfield 1088 to 1043, forwards 1031 to 1005, defence 1153 to 1102, ruck 1201 to 1170. Collingwood spent three quarters playing above that class gap. Eventually the gap found them.

Form lines told a similar tale before a ball was bounced. Melbourne came in with two wins from five and an average margin of plus 0.4, Collingwood with one win and minus 10.8. Melbourne's WLWLL sort of era compared to Collingwood's stretch of losses, LLLWL, had them as the side more used to closing things out. That's exactly what happened.

Alphr's model had Collingwood favourites, 57% and a tip of six points, with the ratings sitting at 1521 to 1464 in Collingwood's favour. Instead Melbourne won by eight. Not a shocking upset given the underlying strength numbers, but a reminder that leading for three quarters means nothing if the other side has the better ruck and the better recent record. The model went 1 from 4 on this one. It did get the total right, under 180.5, with the two sides combining for 158.

Collingwood will look at the clearance and tackle counts and wonder how a side winning those by that much still lost. The answer's sitting right there in the hit-out column. Melbourne turned first use of the footy into second-half control, and that's the sort of thing that doesn't show up until the last quarter decides it did.

**Scoring by Quarter**

| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | T |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collingwood | 26 | 13 | 21 | 15 | 75 |
| Melbourne | 22 | 15 | 18 | 28 | 83 |

**Key Match Stats**

| Collingwood | Stat | Melbourne |
|---|---|---|
| **383** | Disposals | 362 |
| **132** | Contested poss. | 128 |
| **39** | Clearances | 34 |
| 54 | Inside 50s | **58** |
| 79 | Marks | **87** |
| 11 | Marks inside 50 | **13** |
| **68** | Tackles | 60 |
| 23 | Hit-outs | **52** |
| 67 | Intercepts | **70** |
| **73.1%** | Disposal eff. | 72.9% |

**Model Report Card**

Melbourne defied the model's 57% prediction for Collingwood, a notable result. The margin model missed here, predicting 6.0 but the actual margin was 8 points. Melbourne trailed 39–37 at half-time before staging a second-half comeback to win 75–83. The model went 1/4 on this match. The under 180.5 total call was correct.

_Official AFL match stats · Generated by Alphr's model_

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

- **Head to Head:** Collingwood to win @ $1.79 (edge +1.6%) — model probability 57.5% — result: LOST
- **Line / Spread:** Collingwood -2.5 @ $1.89 (edge +3.5%) — result: LOST
- **Margin Band:** Collingwood 1-39 @ $3.30 (edge +0.0%) — result: LOST
- **Total (Over/Under):** Under 180.5 @ $1.88 (edge +1.8%) — result: WON
- Predicted margin: Collingwood by 6 · Predicted total: 145

### Match Preview (pre-match read)

Collingwood are the call at 57%, but Melbourne stay live at 43%. The heaviest factor is the ratings gap: Collingwood sit 57 ELO points clear, 1521 to 1464. Form leans Melbourne's way: 2 from their last 5, against 1 for Collingwood.

On paper Melbourne shade it, ahead on 5 of 7 factors including Midfield ELO, Recent Win Rate and Forward Line ELO. The model still sides with Collingwood, which says ELO Difference carry the most weight. The margin model has Collingwood by 6.0, with the two sides combining for about 145. Lean Collingwood, but it shapes as a genuine contest.

_Pre-match read · Alphr model_

### Recent Form (Last 5)

| Collingwood | Stat | Melbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | Wins (Last 5) | 2.0 |
| 84.2pts | Avg Score | 98.6pts |
| 95.0pts | Avg Conceded | 98.2pts |
| -10.8pts | Avg Margin | 0.4pts |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Collingwood | R8 L · R9 L · R10 L · R11 W · R12 L | 84.2 |
| Melbourne | R8 L · R9 W · R10 W · R11 L · R12 L | 98.6 |

### H2H History (Last 5) — Collingwood lead 5-0

| Season | Round | Home | Score | Away |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | R24 | Collingwood | 82 – 76 | Melbourne |
| 2025 | R13 | Melbourne | 71 – 72 | Collingwood |
| 2024 | R24 | Melbourne | 57 – 103 | Collingwood |
| 2024 | R13 | Collingwood | 89 – 51 | Melbourne |
| 2023 | WF | Collingwood | 60 – 53 | Melbourne |

### Positional Matchup

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

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

|  | Collingwood | Melbourne |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 10th | 9th |
| Defence rank | 7th | 17th (weak) |
| Goals scored · conceded | 104 · 101 | 108 · 126 |
| Goal Assists | 4.9/g | 4.6/g |
| Disposals | 123/g | 108/g |
| Inside 50s | 21.6/g | 22.9/g |
| Marks Inside 50 | 9.3/g | 7.6/g |
| Disposal Efficiency | 70.4% | 68.1% |

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

|  | Collingwood | Melbourne |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 10th | 2nd (strong) |
| Defence rank | 4th (strong) | 14th (weak) |
| Goals scored · conceded | 36 · 31 | 56 · 42 |
| Goal Assists | 2.8/g | 4/g |
| Disposals | 130/g | 133/g |
| Inside 50s | 18.8/g | 24/g |
| Marks Inside 50 | 1.8/g | 4.3/g |
| Disposal Efficiency | 70.8% | 68.8% |

**Defenders** (Key & Medium Defenders)

|  | Collingwood | Melbourne |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 16th (weak) | 12th |
| Defence rank | 2nd (strong) | 1st (strong) |
| Goals scored · conceded | 3 · 6 | 8 · 5 |
| Goal Assists | 0.9/g | 1.4/g |
| Disposals | 131/g | 103/g |
| Inside 50s | 11.3/g | 9.4/g |
| Marks Inside 50 | 0.5/g | 0.4/g |
| Disposal Efficiency | 80.9% | 79.6% |

**Who scores on Melbourne** — Defenders 1.33/g (lg 1.13) +18% · Forwards 4.64/g (lg 4.44) +5% · Rucks 0.53/g (lg 0.51) +4%
**Who scores on Collingwood** — Rucks 0.58/g (lg 0.51) +14% · Defenders 1.12/g (lg 1.13) -1% · Midfielders 2.33/g (lg 2.5) -7%

_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._

**Collingwood** (team sheet)

| # | Player | Pos | 2026 | Last 10 | vs opp | Venue | Goal % | Alphr play | This game |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | Daniel McStay | KF | 20 in 12g | 19/10g (2·4·1·2·2·1·3·1·2·1) | 11/15g | 54/46g | 82% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.17 AI 83% ✓ Scored; 🎯 First Goal $12.00 AI 7% ✗ Not first | 🏉 20' 79' |
| – | Lachie Schultz | FWD | 13 in 12g | 9/10g (1·1·0·0·1·1·1·1·1·2) | 9/8g | 44/38g | 72% | — | — |
| – | Nick Daicos | MID | 12 in 11g | 12/10g (2·2·0·1·0·1·0·2·3·1) | 5/7g | 40/66g | 64% | — | 🏉 11' 63' |
| – | Tim Membrey | KF | 12 in 8g | 14/10g (0·2·0·1·4·1·1·2·0·3) | 30/14g | 60/34g | 78% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.19 AI 80% ✗ No goal; 🎯 First Goal $13.00 AI 6% ✗ Not first | — |
| – | Jordan De Goey | FWD | 10 in 11g | 7/10g (0·0·1·0·3·2·0·0·0·1) | 8/12g | 129/120g | 52% | — | 🏉 14' 38' |
| – | Roan Steele | MID | 10 in 12g | 7/10g (0·1·0·0·2·0·0·1·2·1) | 0/1g | 7/10g | 44% | — | — |
| – | Angus Anderson | FWD | 8 in 7g | 8/7g (1·0·2·1·1·1·2) | 0/0g | 4/4g | 86% | — | 🏉 86' |
| – | Beau McCreery | FWD | 7 in 11g | 5/10g (1·0·0·0·1·2·0·0·0·1) | 5/9g | 46/63g | 34% | — | — |
| – | Patrick Lipinski | FWD | 4 in 11g | 4/10g (0·0·0·0·1·1·0·0·1·1) | 7/12g | 32/65g | 36% | — | — |
| – | Jack Buller | KF | 3 in 5g | 9/10g (0·1·1·1·3·0·0·1·2·0) | 0/0g | 3/4g | 60% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.60 AI 70% ✓ Scored | 🏉 91' |
| – | Jack Crisp | MID | 3 in 12g | 2/10g (0·0·1·0·1·0·0·0·0·0) | 6/20g | 53/161g | 30% | — | — |
| – | Scott Pendlebury | MID | 3 in 9g | 3/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·2·1·0·0) | 7/19g | 83/190g | 20% | — | — |
| – | Brayden Maynard | DEF | 1 in 12g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0) | 2/16g | 16/146g | 12% | — | — |
| – | Dan Houston | DEF | 1 in 12g | 1/10g (1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 3/12g | 8/37g | 20% | — | — |
| – | Darcy Cameron | RUC | 1 in 11g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 8/10g | 39/77g | 20% | — | — |
| – | Edward Allan | MID | 1 in 7g | 2/10g (1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0) | 1/2g | 3/10g | 16% | — | — |
| – | Josh Daicos | DEF | 1 in 12g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0) | 2/13g | 31/94g | 8% | — | — |
| – | Billy Frampton | DEF | 0 in 12g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/4g | 4/35g | 2% | — | — |
| – | Harry Perryman | DEF | 0 in 8g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/9g | 3/35g | 8% | — | — |
| – | Harvey Harrison | FWD | 0 in 1g | 9/10g (0·3·0·3·1·0·2·0·0·0) | 4/2g | 9/9g | 48% | — | — |
| – | Isaac Quaynor | DEF | 0 in 12g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/9g | 3/83g | 4% | — | — |
| – | Jeremy Howe | DEF | 0 in 9g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/14g | 56/168g | 8% | — | — |

**Melbourne** (team sheet)

| # | Player | Pos | 2026 | Last 10 | vs opp | Venue | Goal % | Alphr play | This game |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | Jacob van Rooyen | KF | 19 in 12g | 13/10g (0·1·0·3·0·2·5·2·0·0) | 6/6g | 59/42g | 64% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.33 AI 70% ✓ Scored | — |
| – | Brody Mihocek | KF | 16 in 9g | 16/10g (0·3·1·1·2·1·2·3·0·3) | 0/0g | 165/98g | 82% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.18 AI 77% ✗ No goal; 🎯 First Goal $12.00 AI 6% ✗ Not first | — |
| – | Harry Sharp | FWD | 16 in 12g | 13/10g (1·1·1·2·1·2·1·2·2·0) | 0/2g | 14/16g | 60% | — | — |
| – | Kysaiah Pickett | MID | 16 in 12g | 14/10g (1·1·2·0·4·2·1·2·0·1) | 13/10g | 112/69g | 82% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.29 AI 71% ✓ Scored | 🏉 8' 97' |
| – | Harvey Langford | MID | 15 in 12g | 15/10g (2·2·1·3·1·1·1·2·2·0) | 1/2g | 19/18g | 61% | — | 🏉 92' |
| – | Bayley Fritsch | FWD | 14 in 11g | 13/10g (2·4·1·2·2·0·0·2·0·0) | 20/13g | 150/89g | 70% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.33 AI 71% ✓ Scored | 🏉 83' 74' 83' |
| – | Kade Chandler | FWD | 13 in 12g | 11/10g (2·0·1·3·1·1·1·1·1·0) | 1/8g | 46/53g | 64% | — | — |
| – | Max Gawn | RUC | 8 in 12g | 7/10g (0·1·1·0·1·2·1·0·1·0) | 7/18g | 65/131g | 42% | — | — |
| – | Ed Langdon | MID | 6 in 12g | 4/10g (2·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·1·0) | 7/14g | 30/79g | 34% | — | — |
| – | Tom Sparrow | MID | 6 in 12g | 5/10g (1·0·1·0·1·1·0·0·0·1) | 4/9g | 26/65g | 42% | — | — |
| – | Latrelle Pickett | FWD | 5 in 11g | 4/10g (0·0·1·1·0·0·1·0·0·1) | 0/0g | 2/6g | 43% | — | — |
| – | Caleb Windsor | FWD | 4 in 11g | 3/10g (0·0·0·0·0·2·1·0·0·0) | 0/2g | 9/26g | 26% | — | — |
| – | Harrison Petty | KF | 4 in 11g | 4/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·3·1·0) | 3/8g | 31/57g | 40% | — | — |
| – | Jack Steele | MID | 3 in 12g | 2/10g (0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0·1) | 0/9g | 6/26g | 24% | — | — |
| – | Daniel Turner | DEF | 2 in 10g | 2/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0·1·0) | 1/5g | 12/25g | 32% | — | — |
| – | Koltyn Tholstrup | DEF | 2 in 12g | 2/10g (0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0) | 3/2g | 8/18g | 24% | — | — |
| – | Trent Rivers | DEF | 2 in 5g | 3/10g (0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·1) | 0/8g | 5/66g | 22% | — | — |
| – | Blake Howes | DEF | 0 in 12g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/4g | 1/23g | 2% | — | — |
| – | Jake Bowey | DEF | 0 in 4g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/6g | 6/46g | 4% | — | — |
| – | Jake Lever | DEF | 0 in 11g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/11g | 1/74g | 2% | — | — |
| – | Luker Kentfield | KF | no games | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0/0g | — | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.44 AI 74% ✓ Scored | 🏉 59' |
| – | Tom McDonald | DEF | 0 in 3g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 9/17g | 78/134g | 6% | — | — |

### 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._

**Collingwood**

| Player | Line | Under | AI Under | Actual |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nick Daicos | 32.5 | $1.87 | 49% | 35 ✗ |
| Josh Daicos | 25.5 | $1.95 | 59% | 30 ✗ |
| Jordan De Goey ⚡ Under | 24.5 | $1.87 | 80% | 21 ✓ |
| Scott Pendlebury | 24.5 | $1.87 | 51% | 20 ✓ |
| Jack Crisp | 23.5 | $1.90 | 58% | 16 ✓ |
| Dan Houston | 23.5 | $1.87 | 60% | 12 ✓ |
| Patrick Lipinski ⚡ Under | 20.5 | $1.91 | 63% | 28 ✗ |
| Brayden Maynard | 18.5 | $1.90 | 47% | 8 ✓ |
| Isaac Quaynor | 17.5 | $1.89 | 60% | 17 ✓ |
| Jeremy Howe | 17.5 | $1.90 | 51% | 17 ✓ |
| Darcy Cameron | 16.5 | $1.87 | 51% | 19 ✗ |
| Roan Steele | 14.5 | $1.88 | 34% | 18 ✗ |
| Lachie Schultz | 14.5 | $1.90 | 55% | 19 ✗ |
| Beau McCreery ⚡ Under | 14.5 | $1.91 | 62% | 15 ✗ |

**Melbourne**

| Player | Line | Under | AI Under | Actual |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jake Bowey ⚡ Under | 25.5 | $1.95 | 67% | 19 ✓ |
| Jack Steele | 24.5 | $1.95 | 52% | 26 ✗ |
| Kysaiah Pickett | 22.5 | $1.88 | 60% | 28 ✗ |
| Trent Rivers | 22.5 | $1.95 | 59% | 17 ✓ |
| Max Gawn | 21.5 | $1.94 | 58% | 22 ✗ |
| Ed Langdon | 20.5 | $1.90 | 43% | 23 ✗ |
| Tom Sparrow | 20.5 | $1.90 | 49% | 24 ✗ |
| Harvey Langford | 15.5 | $1.91 | 31% | 26 ✗ |
| Kade Chandler | 15.5 | $1.93 | 52% | 19 ✗ |
| Caleb Windsor | 15.5 | $1.87 | 39% | 16 ✗ |
| Koltyn Tholstrup | 15.5 | $1.87 | 44% | 17 ✗ |
| Daniel Turner | 14.5 | $1.88 | 47% | 14 ✓ |
| Jake Lever | 14.5 | $1.89 | 38% | 15 ✗ |
| Harry Sharp | 12.5 | $1.86 | 44% | 16 ✗ |

### Prediction Breakdown — Pure Alpha Model

**Team ELO Ratings** — Collingwood 1521 · Melbourne 1464 · ELO difference: 57 in favour of Collingwood

**Positional Matchups** — lineup ELO by unit

| Unit | Collingwood | Melbourne | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Midfield | 1043 (best 1258) | 1088 (best 1342) | Melbourne +45 |
| Forwards | 1005 (best 1480) | 1031 (best 1471) | Melbourne +27 |
| Defence | 1102 (best 1301) | 1153 (best 1488) | Melbourne +51 |
| Ruck | 1170 (best 1328) | 1201 (best 1461) | Melbourne +31 |

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

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

**Model Confidence: 57%** — Collingwood predicted to win by 6 points · Predicted total: 145 pts

**Record:** 1/4 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-r13-collingwood-v-melbourne
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: 2026-06-08 08:17 UTC (latest tip update)