# Hawthorn v Collingwood — AFL Round 23 2026 AI Prediction by Alphr

## Full Time: Hawthorn 92 – 92 Collingwood

_Hawthorn and Collingwood can't be separated._

Half time: 25 – 47 · Alphr AI pre-game win probability: Hawthorn 55% / Collingwood 45% · MCG · Sat, 15 Aug, 07:40 pm AEST

**Goal Kickers** — Hawthorn: Jai Newcombe (4' 1st), Lloyd Meek (11'), Mabior Chol (34' Tipped ⚡), Jack Gunston (65' ×2 Tipped ⚡), Connor Macdonald (67'), Cam Mackenzie (70'), Mitch Lewis (75' ×2 Tipped ⚡), Final quarter (35m 11s)Josh Ward (60'), Josh Ward (62'), Max Beattie (79'), Dylan Moore (81') · Collingwood: Charlie West (7' ×2), Edward Allan (9'), Nick Daicos (37'), Angus Anderson (38'), Beau McCreery (48'), Roan Steele (51' ×2), Will Hayes (86' ×2), Daniel McStay (67' ×2 Tipped ⚡), Dan Houston (69')

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

| Team | Pre-game AI win probability | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Hawthorn | 55% | Draw |
| Collingwood | 45% | Draw |

Model call: **Draw** · Margin: 4.3 predicted → 0 actual · Markets hit: 1/4

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

### Full-Time Report

**Hawthorn vs Collingwood Prediction and Tips - AFL Round 23, 2026**

_By Ben Dunlop · Published: 13 Aug 2026, 07:50 pm · Last updated: 15 Aug 2026, 10:24 pm_

Hawthorn 92–92 Collingwood in AFL Round 23 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 will be reflecting on missed chances after their 92–92 draw with Hawthorn at the MCG. They showed strength in key areas but couldn't convert it into a win. Their midfield was solid, leading clearances 41 to 29, but it wasn't enough. Despite controlling the ball with 384 disposals, they failed to turn possession into a decisive advantage. They did the hard work but didn't reap the rewards.

Inside 50s were in their favour, with 60 entries compared to Hawthorn's 47. However, they were wasteful, managing only 10 marks inside their forward 50 compared to Hawthorn's 16. Their forward entries lacked precision, failing to convert territorial advantage into scoreboard pressure. They had frequency but lacked execution when it mattered.

Defensively, Collingwood brought intensity. Their 92 tackles to Hawthorn's 55 showed commitment. Yet, this defensive pressure seemed to drain them. Hawthorn capitalised on these moments, executing 66 intercepts to Collingwood's 57, turning defence into attack.

Hawthorn, meanwhile, benefitted from their ruck control. Winning 48 hit-outs to Collingwood's 30 gave them first use more often. When inside 50, their efficiency was clear, reflected in superior inside 50 marks. They read the play better, and this ability to anticipate and execute under pressure kept them in the game.

At three-quarter time, Hawthorn led 60–57. They clawed back from a 22-point deficit at half-time, showing resilience. Collingwood couldn't hold their lead, indicative of a side spent from defensive exertion. The tide turned in the third quarter when Hawthorn's defence stood up, and Collingwood's attack faltered.

The match ended in a draw, defying predictions. Alphr's model had pegged Hawthorn as likely winners with a modest margin of 4.3 points. The stalemate was a deviation from the forecast, underscoring sport's unpredictability. The total points, 184, exceeded the expected 168, reflecting two teams that could score but couldn't hold a lead.

It was a game of two styles: Collingwood's midfield muscle versus Hawthorn's defensive nous. Both were evenly matched over four quarters, with no clear victor. Wins and misses, all of it. It's one for the fans, but both teams will head back to the drawing board, pondering what could have been.

This result keeps both teams in respectable form, each having won four of their last five. However, Collingwood’s average margin of 10.6 points wasn't enough for a win here. Hawthorn's comeback, showing why their defensive ratings aren't to be trifled with, was on display. For now, the draw stands as a reminder of what needs attention in the back half of the season.

**Scoring by Quarter**

| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | T |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hawthorn | 15 | 10 | 35 | 32 | 92 |
| Collingwood | 15 | 32 | 10 | 35 | 92 |

**Key Match Stats**

| Hawthorn | Stat | Collingwood |
|---|---|---|
| 359 | Disposals | **384** |
| 126 | Contested poss. | **129** |
| 29 | Clearances | **41** |
| 47 | Inside 50s | **60** |
| **99** | Marks | 70 |
| **16** | Marks inside 50 | 10 |
| 55 | Tackles | **92** |
| **48** | Hit-outs | 30 |
| **66** | Intercepts | 57 |
| **73.5%** | Disposal eff. | 71.6% |

**Model Report Card**

The match ended in a draw (92–92), a rare result the model's 55% forecast for Hawthorn didn't account for. The predicted margin of 4.3 was reasonable against the actual 0-point result. The game's 184 points came in 16 points higher than the predicted 168. The model went 1/4 on this match. Collingwood covered the 19.5-point line.

_Official AFL match stats · Generated by Alphr's model_

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

- **Head to Head:** Hawthorn to win @ $1.35 (edge -19.4%) — model probability 54.7% — result: LOST
- **Line / Spread:** Collingwood +19.5 @ $1.91 (edge +15.2%) — result: WON
- **Margin Band:** Hawthorn 1-39 @ $3.30 (edge +0.0%) — result: LOST
- **Total (Over/Under):** Under 174.5 @ $1.88 (edge +1.8%) — result: LOST
- Predicted margin: Hawthorn by 4 · Predicted total: 168

### Match Preview (pre-match read)

Hawthorn are the call at 55%, but Collingwood stay live at 45%. The ratings say otherwise: Collingwood sit 21 ELO points clear, 1624 to 1604, so the model is backing Hawthorn against the ratings gap.

On paper Collingwood shade it, ahead on 4 of 7 factors including Stat Profile, Forward Line and Venue. The model still sides with Hawthorn, which says Recent Form and Defence carry the most weight. The margin model has Hawthorn by 4.3, with the two sides combining for about 168. Lean Hawthorn, but it shapes as a genuine contest.

_Pre-match read · Alphr model_

### Recent Form (Last 5)

| Hawthorn | Stat | Collingwood |
|---|---|---|
| 4.0 | Wins (Last 5) | 4.0 |
| 102.8pts | Avg Score | 95.2pts |
| 67.6pts | Avg Conceded | 84.6pts |
| 35.2pts | Avg Margin | 10.6pts |
| 403.4 | Disposals | 370.2 |
| 50.0 | Inside 50s | 50.0 |
| 57.4 | Tackles | 73.4 |
| 35.4 | Clearances | 38.4 |

### Form & History

_Last 5 games, oldest → newest._

| Team | Last 5 | Avg Pts |
|---|---|---|
| Hawthorn | R18 W · R19 W · R20 W · R21 W · R22 L | 102.8 |
| Collingwood | R18 W · R19 W · R20 W · R21 L · R22 W | 95.2 |

### Positional Matchup

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

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

|  | Hawthorn | Collingwood |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 2nd (strong) | 9th |
| Defence rank | 8th | 6th (strong) |
| Goals scored · conceded | 234 · 183 | 193 · 178 |
| Goal Assists | 5.3/g | 5.3/g |
| Disposals | 119/g | 125/g |
| Inside 50s | 22/g | 21.8/g |
| Marks Inside 50 | 10.3/g | 10.1/g |
| Disposal Efficiency | 68.1% | 70% |

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

|  | Hawthorn | Collingwood |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 16th (weak) | 10th |
| Defence rank | 7th | 4th (strong) |
| Goals scored · conceded | 39 · 61 | 64 · 56 |
| Goal Assists | 3.6/g | 2.8/g |
| Disposals | 134/g | 133/g |
| Inside 50s | 21/g | 19.4/g |
| Marks Inside 50 | 1.6/g | 1.8/g |
| Disposal Efficiency | 71.5% | 71% |

**Defenders** (Key & Medium Defenders)

|  | Hawthorn | Collingwood |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 3rd (strong) | 16th (weak) |
| Defence rank | 3rd (strong) | 2nd (strong) |
| Goals scored · conceded | 25 · 11 | 7 · 9 |
| Goal Assists | 1.6/g | 1.1/g |
| Disposals | 137/g | 122/g |
| Inside 50s | 14/g | 11.2/g |
| Marks Inside 50 | 1.2/g | 0.5/g |
| Disposal Efficiency | 81.3% | 80.8% |

**Who scores on Collingwood** — Rucks 0.54/g (lg 0.52) +4% · Defenders 1.01/g (lg 1.06) -5% · Midfielders 2.35/g (lg 2.47) -5%
**Who scores on Hawthorn** — Midfielders 2.35/g (lg 2.47) -5% · Forwards 4.18/g (lg 4.49) -7% · Key Forwards 3.47/g (lg 3.88) -11%

_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._

**Hawthorn** (team sheet)

| # | Player | Pos | 2026 | Last 10 | vs opp | Venue | Goal % | Alphr play | This game |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | Jack Gunston | KF | 52 in 15g | 33/10g (5·0·6·5·1·3·1·7·2·3) | 27/19g | 257/126g | 92% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.03 AI 93% ✓ Scored; 🎯 First Goal $7.50 AI 10% ✗ Not first | 🏉 65' 72' |
| – | Nick Watson | FWD | 52 in 19g | 29/10g (3·2·2·3·3·3·5·3·5·0) | 8/4g | 59/28g | 90% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.03 AI 89% ✗ No goal; 🎯 First Goal $7.50 AI 8% ✗ Not first | — |
| – | Mitch Lewis | KF | 30 in 20g | 14/10g (1·3·0·1·2·1·1·5·0·0) | 12/6g | 73/41g | 78% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.17 AI 74% ✓ Scored | 🏉 75' 64' |
| – | Mabior Chol | KF | 28 in 16g | 20/10g (2·3·2·2·5·1·1·2·2·0) | 10/8g | 52/40g | 82% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.18 AI 81% ✓ Scored | 🏉 34' |
| – | Dylan Moore | FWD | 19 in 20g | 8/10g (0·0·4·0·0·2·0·1·0·1) | 9/8g | 61/62g | 58% | — | 🏉 81' |
| – | Jack Ginnivan | FWD | 19 in 21g | 10/10g (1·0·1·2·2·3·0·1·0·0) | 8/5g | 72/58g | 68% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.75 AI 61% ✗ No goal | — |
| – | Connor Macdonald | FWD | 15 in 21g | 7/10g (1·1·2·1·1·0·0·0·0·1) | 8/7g | 36/48g | 56% | — | 🏉 67' |
| – | Blake Hardwick | DEF | 9 in 21g | 5/10g (4·0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 5/13g | 12/87g | 14% | — | — |
| – | Will Day | MID | 7 in 9g | 8/10g (1·0·1·1·0·1·1·2·1·0) | 0/4g | 8/31g | 46% | — | — |
| – | Jai Newcombe | MID | 6 in 21g | 2/10g (0·0·2·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 5/7g | 15/51g | 26% | — | 🏉 4' |
| – | Josh Weddle | DEF | 6 in 18g | 2/10g (0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1) | 2/5g | 15/33g | 34% | — | — |
| – | Jarman Impey | DEF | 5 in 19g | 4/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·1·1·1·1) | 5/14g | 17/75g | 24% | — | — |
| – | Massimo D'Ambrosio | MID | 5 in 21g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1) | 3/5g | 10/36g | 18% | — | — |
| – | Harry Morrison | MID | 4 in 11g | 4/10g (0·1·0·0·0·1·0·1·1·0) | 2/5g | 13/54g | 28% | — | — |
| – | Josh Ward | MID | 4 in 21g | 4/10g (0·0·0·0·2·1·0·0·1·0) | 0/6g | 4/39g | 16% | — | 🏉 62' |
| – | Cam Mackenzie | MID | 3 in 19g | 2/10g (0·0·0·1·0·0·0·1·0·0) | 0/3g | 9/26g | 16% | — | 🏉 70' |
| – | Lloyd Meek | RUC | 3 in 21g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 3/5g | 9/35g | 12% | — | 🏉 11' |
| – | Josh Battle | DEF | 2 in 19g | 2/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0·1·0) | 1/8g | 4/33g | 8% | — | — |
| – | James Sicily | DEF | 1 in 20g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0) | 5/13g | 32/89g | 10% | — | — |
| – | Tom Barrass | DEF | 1 in 17g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/13g | 0/30g | 2% | — | — |
| – | Bailey Macdonald | DEF | 0 in 10g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/0g | 0/8g | 4% | — | — |
| – | Karl Amon | DEF | 0 in 16g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 2/12g | 10/42g | 6% | — | — |
| – | Max Beattie | FWD | no games | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0/0g | — | — | 🏉 79' |

**Collingwood** (team sheet)

| # | Player | Pos | 2026 | Last 10 | vs opp | Venue | Goal % | Alphr play | This game |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| – | Daniel McStay | KF | 41 in 21g | 22/10g (1·2·1·0·3·3·2·2·5·3) | 12/12g | 64/51g | 78% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.11 AI 80% ✓ Scored | 🏉 67' 71' |
| – | Tim Membrey | KF | 30 in 17g | 21/10g (3·0·3·2·3·2·3·2·0·3) | 16/10g | 68/39g | 80% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.17 AI 82% ✗ No goal; 🎯 First Goal $12.00 AI 7% ✗ Not first | — |
| – | Lachie Schultz | FWD | 24 in 19g | 15/10g (1·1·2·0·2·4·1·1·0·3) | 9/9g | 50/42g | 72% | ⚡ Anytime Goal $1.43 AI 70% ✗ No goal | — |
| – | Nick Daicos | MID | 22 in 20g | 11/10g (1·2·1·3·1·1·0·1·0·1) | 5/7g | 46/71g | 72% | — | 🏉 37' |
| – | Jordan De Goey | FWD | 18 in 19g | 9/10g (0·1·2·3·1·0·0·1·1·0) | 13/12g | 136/125g | 58% | — | — |
| – | Angus Anderson | FWD | 14 in 14g | 10/10g (1·1·2·1·2·0·1·1·1·0) | 1/1g | 7/7g | 79% | — | 🏉 38' |
| – | Roan Steele | MID | 13 in 16g | 9/10g (2·0·0·1·2·1·1·0·0·2) | 0/1g | 8/13g | 48% | — | 🏉 51' 88' |
| – | Beau McCreery | FWD | 12 in 20g | 6/10g (1·0·0·0·0·0·2·1·2·0) | 2/5g | 50/68g | 34% | — | 🏉 48' |
| – | Ned Long | FWD | 6 in 19g | 3/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·2·1·0·0) | 0/4g | 8/33g | 26% | — | — |
| – | William Hayes | FWD | 6 in 7g | 7/9g (0·1·0·1·1·2·1·0·1) | 2/1g | 5/5g | 67% | — | 🏉 86' 73' |
| – | Jack Crisp | MID | 5 in 21g | 2/10g (0·0·0·0·1·1·0·0·0·0) | 3/15g | 53/166g | 28% | — | — |
| – | Sam Swadling | MID | 5 in 6g | 5/6g (1·0·1·1·1·1) | 0/0g | 2/3g | 83% | — | — |
| – | Scott Pendlebury | MID | 5 in 15g | 5/10g (2·1·0·0·0·0·1·0·1·0) | 5/20g | 83/194g | 22% | — | — |
| – | Dan Houston | DEF | 4 in 21g | 3/10g (0·0·0·1·0·0·1·0·0·1) | 6/9g | 10/42g | 26% | — | 🏉 69' |
| – | Edward Allan | MID | 4 in 16g | 3/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·2·0·1) | 0/1g | 3/15g | 17% | — | 🏉 9' |
| – | Charlie West | KF | 3 in 6g | 4/7g (1·1·0·1·0·1·0) | 0/0g | 2/3g | 57% | — | 🏉 7' 43' |
| – | Harvey Harrison | FWD | 3 in 9g | 3/10g (0·0·0·0·0·1·0·1·1·0) | 0/0g | 10/14g | 43% | — | — |
| – | Darcy Cameron | RUC | 2 in 20g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0) | 2/8g | 39/82g | 18% | — | — |
| – | Josh Daicos | DEF | 1 in 21g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/8g | 31/99g | 4% | — | — |
| – | Billy Frampton | DEF | 0 in 21g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/6g | 4/40g | 0% | — | — |
| – | Isaac Quaynor | DEF | 0 in 19g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/10g | 3/88g | 0% | — | — |
| – | Liam Puncher | DEF | 0 in 6g | 0/6g (0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/0g | 0/2g | 0% | — | — |
| – | Noah Howes | DEF | 0 in 1g | 0/1g (0) | 0/0g | 0/0g | 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._

**Hawthorn**

| Player | Line | Under | AI Under | Actual |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jai Newcombe | 23.5 | $1.89 | 39% | 24 ✗ |
| Jarman Impey | 23.5 | $1.87 | 57% | 25 ✗ |
| Josh Ward | 23.5 | $1.96 | 52% | 20 ✓ |
| Karl Amon | 23.5 | $1.87 | 63% | 18 ✓ |
| James Sicily | 21.5 | — | 53% | 19 ✓ |
| Josh Battle | 20.5 | — | 59% | 20 ✓ |
| Blake Hardwick | 20.5 | — | 66% | 13 ✓ |
| Cameron Mackenzie | 20.5 | — | — | — |
| Connor MacDonald | 20.5 | — | 54% | 8 ✓ |
| Dylan Moore | 20.5 | — | 72% | 19 ✓ |
| Jack Ginnivan | 20.5 | — | 65% | 13 ✓ |
| Will Day | 20.5 | — | 52% | 16 ✓ |
| Massimo D'Ambrosio | 20.5 | — | 49% | 15 ✓ |
| Joshua Weddle | 18.5 | — | — | — |

**Collingwood**

| Player | Line | Under | AI Under | Actual |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nick Daicos | 34.5 | $1.92 | 56% | 36 ✗ |
| Josh Daicos ⚡ Under | 27.5 | $1.92 | 64% | 30 ✗ |
| Scott Pendlebury | 23.5 | — | 40% | 20 ✓ |
| Dan Houston ⚡ Under | 20.5 | $1.93 | 63% | 21 ✗ |
| Darcy Cameron | 20.5 | — | 71% | 16 ✓ |
| Ned Long | 20.5 | — | 86% | 17 ✓ |
| Jack Crisp | 19.5 | $1.93 | 57% | 12 ✓ |
| Edward Allan | 19.5 | — | 66% | 28 ✗ |
| Jordan De Goey | 19.5 | — | 42% | 23 ✗ |
| Sam Swadling | 17.5 | — | 73% | 29 ✗ |
| Isaac Quaynor | 16.5 | — | 55% | 11 ✓ |
| Beau McCreery | 15.5 | — | 84% | 22 ✗ |
| Roan Steele | 14.5 | — | 41% | 17 ✗ |
| Tim Membrey | 14.5 | — | 71% | 9 ✓ |

### Prediction Breakdown — Pure Alpha Model

**ELO–Market Disagreement:** Collingwood hold the ELO advantage (1624 vs 1604), but the market favours Hawthorn (@1.35). The model sides with the market, other factors override the ELO gap.

**Team ELO Ratings** — Hawthorn 1604 · Collingwood 1624 · ELO difference: 21 in favour of Collingwood

**Positional Matchups** — lineup ELO by unit

| Unit | Hawthorn | Collingwood | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Midfield | 1178 (best 1250) | 1201 (best 1347) | Collingwood +23 |
| Forwards | 1123 (best 1287) | 1201 (best 1558) | Collingwood +78 |
| Defence | 1162 (best 1267) | 1095 (best 1127) | Hawthorn +67 |
| Ruck | 1092 (best 1092) | 1000 (best 1000) | Hawthorn +92 |

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

| # | Factor | Weight | Favours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stat Profile | 28.0% | Collingwood |
| 2 | Recent Form | 19.1% | Hawthorn |
| 3 | Forward Line | 13.8% | Hawthorn |
| 4 | Venue | 10.2% | Collingwood |
| 5 | Defence | 8.0% | Hawthorn |
| 6 | Weather | 6.9% | Hawthorn |
| 7 | ELO Rating | 5.1% | Collingwood |

**Model Confidence: 55%** — Hawthorn predicted to win by 4 points · Predicted total: 168 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-r23-hawthorn-v-collingwood
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: 2026-08-15 12:24 UTC (latest tip update)