# Collingwood v Richmond — AFL Round 16 2026 AI Prediction by Alphr

## Full Time: Collingwood 106 – 72 Richmond

_Collingwood see off Richmond._

Half time: 54 – 21 · Alphr AI pre-game win probability: Collingwood 70% / Richmond 30% · MCG · Sat, 27 June, 04:15 pm AEST

**Goal Kickers** — Collingwood: Nick Daicos (5' ×3 1st Tipped ⚡), Patrick Lipinski (31' ×2), Lachie Schultz (33' ×3 Tipped ⚡), Tim Membrey (49' ×2 Tipped ⚡), Jack Buller (57' ×2 Tipped ⚡), Jordan de Goey (63' Tipped ⚡), Final quarter (28m 33s)Lachie Schultz (60') · Richmond: Jasper Alger (8' ×2), Rhyan Mansell (41' ×3 Tipped ⚡), Tim Taranto (67' ×3), Noah Balta (84'), Sam Grlj (63')

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

| Team | Pre-game AI win probability | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Collingwood | 70% | Won |
| Richmond | 30% | Lost |

Model call: **Correct** · Margin: 18.3 predicted → 34 actual · Markets hit: 3/4

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

### Full-Time Report

**Collingwood vs Richmond Prediction and Tips - AFL Round 16, 2026**

_By Ben Dunlop · Published: 25 June 2026, 06:48 pm · Last updated: 27 June 2026, 07:17 pm_

Collingwood 106–72 Richmond in AFL Round 16 at MCG. Here's how the result stacked up against the model's call, with the win-probability story and where the value landed.

Fifteen all at quarter time, then Collingwood scored 39 unanswered while Richmond managed six. That's the burst that decided this one. By half time it was 54-21, a lead built almost entirely in that one savage term.

Final score at the MCG: Collingwood 106, Richmond 72. A 34-point win. Worth noting though that Richmond actually won the third quarter on the scoreboard, 27 points to 22, cutting into the margin slightly before Collingwood pulled away again in the last, outscoring them 30 to 24 to finish it off. So this wasn't quite the one-way procession the final margin suggests. Richmond had a spell in the game. It just came too late and from too far back.

What's odd is Richmond actually won the contested footy, 117 possessions to 103, and edged the clearance count 31 to 30. On paper that's the sort of split that should keep a game tight. It didn't, because Collingwood turned their look into scoreboard pressure everywhere else that mattered. Fifty-six inside 50s to 51, twenty marks inside forward 50 to Richmond's 13. When Collingwood got it forward, they kept it forward and made it count.

The tackle count tells the rest of the story. Collingwood laid 61 to Richmond's 37, a gap of 24 that explains how Richmond could win the ball at the coalface and still leak it back out the other end. Add 68 intercepts to 58 and you've got a Collingwood defence that read the play, took the ball off Richmond's hands, and set up another forward foray. Richmond's 33 hit-outs to 25 gave them first use around the ground, but first use counts for little if the side with the worse ruck numbers is still winning territory and taking the cleaner marks inside 50, which Collingwood did all night.

None of this should shock anyone who looked at the numbers going in. Collingwood's forward line rating of 1251 against Richmond's 1121 was always going to be the widest gap on the sheet, and it showed up ex

**Scoring by Quarter**

| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | T |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collingwood | 15 | 39 | 22 | 30 | 106 |
| Richmond | 15 | 6 | 27 | 24 | 72 |

**Key Match Stats**

| Collingwood | Stat | Richmond |
|---|---|---|
| **387** | Disposals | 380 |
| 103 | Contested poss. | **117** |
| 30 | Clearances | **31** |
| **56** | Inside 50s | 51 |
| **122** | Marks | 94 |
| **20** | Marks inside 50 | 13 |
| **61** | Tackles | 37 |
| 25 | Hit-outs | **33** |
| **68** | Intercepts | 58 |
| **77.0%** | Disposal eff. | 74.7% |

**Model Report Card**

Our model correctly predicted Collingwood to win at 70% probability. The margin model missed here, predicting 18.3 but the actual margin was 34 points. The game's 178 points came in 174 points higher than the predicted 4. The model went 3/4 on this match. Richmond covered the 37.5-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:** Collingwood to win @ $1.11 (edge -20.5%) — model probability 69.6% — result: WON
- **Line / Spread:** Richmond +37.5 @ $1.90 (edge +19.2%) — result: WON
- **Margin Band:** Collingwood 1-39 @ $3.30 (edge +0.0%) — result: WON
- **Total (Over/Under):** Under 168.5 @ $1.88 (edge +1.8%) — result: LOST
- Predicted margin: Collingwood by 18

### Match Preview (pre-match read)

The model is firm on Collingwood here: 70% to see off Richmond. The heaviest factor is the ratings gap: Collingwood sit 388 ELO points clear, 1511 to 1123. Form leans Collingwood's way: 2 from their last 5, against 1 for Richmond.

Collingwood own the matchup too, leading 5 of 7 factors including ELO Difference, Midfield ELO and Recent Win Rate. The margin model has Collingwood by 18.3, with the two sides combining for about 4. Collingwood to win, and win clearly. The model isn't hedging.

_Pre-match read · Alphr model_

### Recent Form (Last 5)

| Collingwood | Stat | Richmond |
|---|---|---|
| 2.0 | Wins (Last 5) | 1.0 |
| 82.6pts | Avg Score | 66.2pts |
| 79.0pts | Avg Conceded | 104.6pts |
| 3.6pts | Avg Margin | -38.4pts |
| 388.8 | Disposals | 334.0 |
| 50.0 | Inside 50s | 50.0 |
| 65.6 | Tackles | 45.2 |
| 36.4 | Clearances | 30.2 |

### Form & History

_Last 5 games, oldest → newest._

| Team | Last 5 | Avg Pts |
|---|---|---|
| Collingwood | R10 L · R11 W · R12 L · R13 L · R15 W | 82.6 |
| Richmond | R10 L · R11 W · R12 L · R14 L · R15 L | 66.2 |

### Positional Matchup

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

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

|  | Collingwood | Richmond |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 10th | 16th (weak) |
| Defence rank | 4th (strong) | 17th (weak) |
| Goals scored · conceded | 120 · 111 | 96 · 142 |
| Goal Assists | 4.7/g | 3.4/g |
| Disposals | 124/g | 83/g |
| Inside 50s | 21.4/g | 14.8/g |
| Marks Inside 50 | 9.7/g | 7.6/g |
| Disposal Efficiency | 69.9% | 70.7% |

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

|  | Collingwood | Richmond |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 11th | 18th (weak) |
| Defence rank | 5th (strong) | 18th (weak) |
| Goals scored · conceded | 41 · 37 | 20 · 67 |
| Goal Assists | 2.7/g | 2.1/g |
| Disposals | 131/g | 110/g |
| Inside 50s | 19.1/g | 18.7/g |
| Marks Inside 50 | 1.6/g | 1.1/g |
| Disposal Efficiency | 71.4% | 70.7% |

**Defenders** (Key & Medium Defenders)

|  | Collingwood | Richmond |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 17th (weak) | 6th (strong) |
| Defence rank | 1st (strong) | 3rd (strong) |
| Goals scored · conceded | 3 · 6 | 14 · 7 |
| Goal Assists | 0.9/g | 1.2/g |
| Disposals | 130/g | 136/g |
| Inside 50s | 11.1/g | 12.5/g |
| Marks Inside 50 | 0.4/g | 1.2/g |
| Disposal Efficiency | 80.8% | 79.6% |

**Who scores on Richmond** — Rucks 0.68/g (lg 0.51) +33% · Key Forwards 4.97/g (lg 3.83) +30% · Midfielders 3.1/g (lg 2.47) +26%
**Who scores on Collingwood** — Rucks 0.56/g (lg 0.51) +10% · Defenders 1.08/g (lg 1.11) -3% · Midfielders 2.34/g (lg 2.47) -5%

_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 | 23 in 14g | 16/10g (1·2·2·1·3·1·2·1·2·1) | 11/15g | 57/48g | 82% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.07 AI 82% ✗ No goal; 🎯 First Goal $9.00 AI 8% ✗ Not first | — |
| – | Jordan De Goey | FWD | 15 in 13g | 12/10g (1·0·3·2·0·0·0·1·2·3) | 14/11g | 134/122g | 58% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.17 AI 75% ✓ Scored; 🎯 First Goal $11.00 AI 6% ✗ Not first | 🏉 63' |
| – | Lachie Schultz | FWD | 15 in 14g | 9/10g (0·0·1·1·1·1·1·2·0·2) | 5/6g | 46/40g | 70% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.24 AI 68% ✓ Scored | 🏉 33' 72' 76' |
| – | Nick Daicos | MID | 15 in 13g | 11/10g (0·1·0·1·0·2·3·1·2·1) | 3/4g | 43/68g | 66% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.10 AI 68% ✓ Scored | 🏉 5' 23' 62' |
| – | Tim Membrey | KF | 15 in 10g | 15/10g (0·1·4·1·1·2·0·3·0·3) | 26/15g | 63/36g | 78% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.17 AI 84% ✓ Scored; 🎯 First Goal $11.00 AI 8% ✗ Not first | 🏉 49' 55' |
| – | Roan Steele | MID | 11 in 14g | 7/10g (0·0·2·0·0·1·2·1·1·0) | 0/0g | 8/12g | 45% | — | — |
| – | Beau McCreery | FWD | 7 in 13g | 4/10g (0·0·1·2·0·0·0·1·0·0) | 1/2g | 46/65g | 32% | — | — |
| – | Jack Buller | KF | 5 in 7g | 10/10g (1·1·3·0·0·1·2·0·2·0) | 0/0g | 5/6g | 59% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.20 AI 75% ✓ Scored | 🏉 57' 65' |
| – | Patrick Lipinski | FWD | 4 in 13g | 4/10g (0·0·1·1·0·0·1·1·0·0) | 1/6g | 32/67g | 34% | — | 🏉 31' 72' |
| – | Jack Crisp | MID | 3 in 14g | 2/10g (1·0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 5/17g | 53/163g | 28% | — | — |
| – | Ned Long | FWD | 3 in 12g | 3/10g (1·0·1·0·0·0·1·0·0·0) | 1/3g | 6/30g | 28% | — | — |
| – | Scott Pendlebury | MID | 3 in 10g | 3/10g (0·0·0·0·0·2·1·0·0·0) | 12/18g | 83/191g | 18% | — | — |
| – | Steele Sidebottom | MID | 2 in 12g | 2/10g (0·0·0·1·1·0·0·0·0·0) | 6/17g | 107/189g | 28% | — | — |
| – | Dan Houston | DEF | 1 in 14g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 6/14g | 8/39g | 18% | — | — |
| – | Darcy Cameron | RUC | 1 in 13g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 3/6g | 39/79g | 18% | — | — |
| – | Edward Allan | MID | 1 in 9g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0) | 0/1g | 3/12g | 12% | — | — |
| – | Josh Daicos | DEF | 1 in 14g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0) | 2/7g | 31/96g | 8% | — | — |
| – | Sam Swadling | MID | 1 in 1g | 1/1g (1) | 0/0g | 1/1g | 100% | — | — |
| – | Billy Frampton | DEF | 0 in 14g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/2g | 4/37g | 2% | — | — |
| – | Harry Perryman | DEF | 0 in 10g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/11g | 3/37g | 8% | — | — |
| – | Harvey Harrison | FWD | 0 in 3g | 6/10g (0·3·1·0·2·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/1g | 9/11g | 41% | — | — |
| – | Isaac Quaynor | DEF | 0 in 14g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/6g | 3/85g | 0% | — | — |
| – | Jeremy Howe | DEF | 0 in 11g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 3/15g | 56/170g | 6% | — | — |

**Richmond** (team sheet)

| # | Player | Pos | 2026 | Last 10 | vs opp | Venue | Goal % | Alphr play | This game |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | Steely Green | FWD | 13 in 14g | 8/10g (0·1·1·2·1·0·2·0·1·0) | 2/2g | 15/21g | 51% | — | — |
| – | Mykelti Lefau | KF | 12 in 12g | 11/10g (0·4·0·2·1·1·1·1·0·1) | 0/0g | 13/13g | 70% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.36 AI 64% ✗ No goal | — |
| – | Seth Campbell | FWD | 12 in 14g | 9/10g (1·2·2·3·1·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/1g | 24/31g | 52% | — | — |
| – | Jasper Alger | FWD | 8 in 5g | 10/9g (0·2·0·0·0·0·3·4·1) | 0/1g | 3/4g | 44% | — | 🏉 8' 20' |
| – | Noah Balta | DEF | 8 in 13g | 8/10g (0·1·0·3·1·1·0·0·0·2) | 1/4g | 29/63g | 32% | — | 🏉 84' |
| – | Sam Cumming | MID | 6 in 8g | 6/8g (1·0·1·0·1·1·1·1) | 0/0g | 4/4g | 75% | — | — |
| – | Tim Taranto | MID | 6 in 12g | 6/10g (2·0·1·0·0·1·0·0·2·0) | 1/10g | 31/56g | 36% | — | 🏉 67' 78' 85' |
| – | Jack Ross | MID | 4 in 12g | 4/10g (0·0·0·2·0·0·0·1·1·0) | 1/3g | 8/56g | 20% | — | — |
| – | Jayden Short | DEF | 2 in 13g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0) | 8/13g | 20/109g | 12% | — | — |
| – | Rhyan Mansell | FWD | 2 in 1g | 14/10g (1·3·0·3·0·1·2·1·1·2) | 1/5g | 30/44g | 70% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.44 AI 62% ✓ Scored | 🏉 41' 73' 79' |
| – | Dion Prestia | MID | 1 in 10g | 1/10g (1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 3/13g | 32/93g | 20% | — | — |
| – | James Trezise | DEF | 1 in 10g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0) | 1/2g | 2/19g | 11% | — | — |
| – | Maurice Rioli | FWD | 1 in 8g | 2/10g (1·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0) | 0/3g | 17/34g | 26% | — | — |
| – | Nick Vlastuin | DEF | 1 in 13g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/15g | 17/146g | 2% | — | — |
| – | Sam Banks | DEF | 1 in 9g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/2g | 6/30g | 12% | — | — |
| – | Ben Miller | DEF | 0 in 14g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/2g | 7/47g | 0% | — | — |
| – | Kye Annand | DEF | no games | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0/0g | — | — | — |
| – | Nathan Broad | DEF | 0 in 13g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/9g | 0/100g | 0% | — | — |
| – | Patrick Retschko | MID | 0 in 9g | 0/9g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/0g | 0/4g | 0% | — | — |
| – | Sam Grlj | DEF | 0 in 13g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/0g | 0/6g | 0% | — | 🏉 63' |
| – | Taj Hotton | FWD | 0 in 1g | 3/8g (1·0·2·0·0·0·0·0) | 2/1g | 3/5g | 25% | — | — |
| – | Toby Nankervis | RUC | 0 in 3g | 1/10g (0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/8g | 26/95g | 16% | — | — |
| – | Tom Brown | DEF | 0 in 9g | 1/10g (1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 3/2g | 7/28g | 18% | — | — |

### 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 | 36.5 | $1.95 | 58% | 37 ✗ |
| Josh Daicos ⚡ Under | 28.5 | $1.90 | 70% | 29 ✗ |
| Jordan De Goey ⚡ Under | 25.5 | $1.88 | 74% | 27 ✗ |
| Scott Pendlebury | 24.5 | $1.87 | 38% | 25 ✗ |
| Jack Crisp | 22.5 | $1.90 | 48% | 26 ✗ |
| Dan Houston | 22.5 | $1.82 | 55% | 28 ✗ |
| Patrick Lipinski | 21.5 | $1.88 | 61% | 16 ✓ |
| Jeremy Howe | 20.5 | $1.87 | 60% | 12 ✓ |
| Edward Allan ⚡ Under | 19.5 | $1.94 | 90% | 17 ✓ |
| Isaac Quaynor | 18.5 | $1.77 | 58% | 15 ✓ |
| Darcy Cameron ⚡ Under | 18.5 | $1.97 | 64% | 13 ✓ |
| Harry Perryman | 18.5 | $1.87 | 47% | 17 ✓ |
| Steele Sidebottom | 18.5 | $1.87 | 47% | 17 ✓ |
| Ned Long | 17.5 | $1.87 | 59% | 13 ✓ |

**Richmond**

| Player | Line | Under | AI Under | Actual |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tim Taranto | 25.5 | $1.89 | 60% | 26 ✗ |
| Jayden Short ⚡ Under | 25.5 | $1.90 | 64% | 21 ✓ |
| Jack Ross | 23.5 | $1.75 | 61% | 24 ✗ |
| Sam Banks ⚡ Under | 22.5 | $1.95 | 79% | 14 ✓ |
| Dion Prestia | 21.5 | $1.91 | 54% | 16 ✓ |
| Tom Brown ⚡ Under | 18.5 | $1.87 | 77% | 18 ✓ |
| Patrick Retschko | 17.5 | $1.87 | 41% | 26 ✗ |
| James Trezise ⚡ Under | 17.5 | $1.90 | 65% | 20 ✗ |
| Seth Campbell ⚡ Under | 16.5 | $1.87 | 65% | 20 ✗ |
| Sam Cumming | 16.5 | $1.91 | 51% | 27 ✗ |

### Prediction Breakdown — Pure Alpha Model

**Team ELO Ratings** — Collingwood 1511 · Richmond 1123 · ELO difference: 388 in favour of Collingwood

**Positional Matchups** — lineup ELO by unit

| Unit | Collingwood | Richmond | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Midfield | 1252 (best 1550) | 1180 (best 1300) | Collingwood +72 |
| Forwards | 1251 (best 1578) | 1121 (best 1386) | Collingwood +130 |
| Defence | 1185 (best 1385) | 1194 (best 1463) | Richmond +9 |
| Ruck | 1065 (best 1065) | 1169 (best 1261) | Richmond +104 |

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

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

**Model Confidence: 70%** — Collingwood predicted to win by 18 points · Predicted total: 4 pts

**Record:** 3/4 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-r16-collingwood-v-richmond
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: 2026-06-27 09:17 UTC (latest tip update)