# Wakefield Trinity v Leigh Leopards — Super League Play-off Eliminators 2026 AI Prediction by Alphr

## Full Time: Wakefield Trinity 26 – 16 Leigh Leopards

_Wakefield Trinity see off Leigh Leopards._

Half time: 12 – 6 · Alphr AI pre-game win probability: Wakefield Trinity 44% / Leigh Leopards 56% · The Diy Kitchens Stadium · Sat, 19 Sept, 05:00 am AEST

**Try Scorers** — Wakefield Trinity: Tyson Smoothy (17' 1st), Tom Johnstone (28' Tipped ⚡), Isaiah Vagana (44' Tipped ⚡), Caius Faatili (50') · Leigh Leopards: David Armstrong (39' Tipped ⚡), Lachlan Lam (64' Tipped ⚡), Innes Senior (77' Tipped ⚡)

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

| Team | Pre-game AI win probability | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Leigh Leopards | 56% | Lost |
| Wakefield Trinity | 44% | Won |

Model call: **Missed** · Margin: 4.6 predicted → 10 actual · Markets hit: 1/4

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

### Full-Time Report

**Wakefield Trinity vs Leigh Leopards Prediction & Tips | Super League Play-off Eliminators 2026**

_By Ben Dunlop · Published: 17 Sept 2026, 08:18 am · Last updated: 1 Nov 2026, 11:19 am_

Wakefield Trinity 26–16 Leigh Leopards in Super League Play-off Eliminators at The Diy Kitchens Stadium. Here's how the result stacked up against the model's call, with the win-probability story and where the value landed.

Alphr's model predicted Leigh Leopards would edge out Wakefield Trinity by 4.6 points, but the game had other ideas. Wakefield Trinity turned the tables, winning 26–16 at The Diy Kitchens Stadium. The model leaned on Leigh's recent form and stronger halves, but Wakefield's performance in key areas made the difference.

Wakefield Trinity led 12–6 at half-time. Max Jowitt kicked things off with a penalty goal, followed by tries from Tyson Smoothy and Tom Johnstone. Leigh Leopards responded with a try from David Armstrong just before the break, keeping the game within reach. However, Wakefield tightened their grip as the second half progressed.

Possession was crucial. Wakefield held 53% of the ball and translated it into territory, running 1,565 metres compared to Leigh's 1,207. They were more efficient with the ball, completing 79% of their sets against Leigh's 74%. This edge in possession and territory often leads to victory, and it did here, despite the model's expectations.

Wakefield's defence and attack were decisive. They busted 51 tackles, a stark contrast to Leigh's 18, and made 5 line breaks to Leigh's 3. Leigh's defence struggled, missing 51 tackles compared to Wakefield’s 18. This relentless pressure and execution helped Wakefield keep the scoreboard moving.

Individual efforts stood out, with Isaiah Vagana and Caius Faatili crossing the line. Leigh responded with tries from Lachlan Lam and Innes Senior, but these were isolated moments. Wakefield's consistency was key, as they capitalised on opportunities to maintain their lead.

Discipline played a role too. Wakefield conceded fewer penalties, four to Leigh's six, helping them maintain control and disrupt Leigh's momentum. In a tight contest, these small margins can lead to significant differences on the scoreboard.

The model correctly predicted the total points, expecting 39 compared to the actual 42, but missed the broader picture. Wakefield's forward pack seemed weaker on paper, but their hooker, rated at 893 against Leigh's 600, made a significant impact, especially in the ruck.

The model's limitations were evident as Wakefield's backline, rated at 942 against Leigh's 925, exceeded expectations. Wakefield's ability to turn stats into points showed that while numbers tell a story, they don't always dictate the outcome. Sometimes, it's about the play on the field. That's footy for you.

**Key Match Stats**

| Wakefield Trinity | Stat | Leigh Leopards |
|---|---|---|
| **53%** | Possession | 47% |
| **54%** | Territory | 46% |
| **79%** | Completion rate | 74% |
| **1,565** | Run metres | 1,207 |
| **5** | Line breaks | 3 |
| **51** | Tackle busts | 18 |
| **15** | Offloads | 7 |
| **94.9%** | Tackle efficiency | 87.5% |
| **18** | Missed tackles | 51 |
| **8** | Errors | 10 |
| **4** | Penalties conceded | 6 |
| **7.4** | Metres per run | 6.8 |

**Scoring Breakdown**

| Wakefield Trinity | Stat | Leigh Leopards |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Tries | 3 |
| 3/4 | Conversions | 2/3 |
| 2/2 | Penalty Goals | 0/0 |
| 4 | Penalties Conceded | 6 |
| 8 | Errors | 10 |
| 1 | Send Offs | 0 |

**Model Report Card**

Wakefield Trinity defied the model's 56% prediction for Leigh Leopards, a notable result. The margin model missed here, predicting 4.6 but the actual margin was 10 points. Total score prediction of 39 was close to the actual 42, within 3 points. The model went 6/17 on this match. The over 36.5 total call was correct.

**Ref Watch: Clean Game** (29/100) — penalties Wakefield Trinity 4 · Leigh Leopards 6.

_Official Super League match stats · Generated by Alphr's model_

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

- **Head to Head:** Leigh Leopards to win — model probability 56.0% — result: LOST
- **Line / Spread:** Leigh Leopards +4.5 — result: LOST
- **Margin Band:** Leigh Leopards 1-12 — result: LOST
- **Total (Over/Under):** Over 36.5 — model probability 50.0% — result: WON
- Predicted margin: Leigh Leopards by 5 · Predicted total: 39

### Match Preview (pre-match read)

Leigh Leopards are the call at 56%, but Wakefield Trinity stay live at 44%. The ratings say otherwise: Wakefield Trinity sit 23 ELO points clear, 1666 to 1643, so the model is backing Leigh Leopards against the ratings gap.

Leigh Leopards own the matchup too, leading 3 of 6 factors including Recent Win Rate, Halves Control and Venue Advantage. The margin model has Leigh Leopards by 4.6, with the two sides combining for about 39. Lean Leigh Leopards, but it shapes as a genuine contest.

_Pre-match read · Alphr model_

### Recent Form (Last 5)

| Wakefield Trinity | Stat | Leigh Leopards |
|---|---|---|
| 3.0 | Wins (Last 5) | 3.0 |
| 20.0pts | Avg Score | 31.2pts |
| 22.0pts | Avg Conceded | 17.0pts |
| -2.0pts | Avg Margin | 14.2pts |
| 1376.4m | Run Metres | 1307.0m |
| 4.4 | Clean Breaks | 7.8 |
| 316.2 | Tackles | 285.0 |
| 11.2 | Errors | 9.0 |

### Form & History

_Last 5 games, oldest → newest._

| Team | Last 5 | Avg Pts |
|---|---|---|
| Wakefield Trinity | R23 L · R24 L · R25 W · R26 W · R27 W | 20.0 |
| Leigh Leopards | R23 W · R24 W · R25 L · R26 W · R27 L | 31.2 |

### H2H History (Last 5) — Wakefield Trinity lead 3-2

| Season | Round | Home | Score | Away | Alphr's read |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | R27 | Leigh Leopards | 8 – 19 | Wakefield Trinity | Leigh Leopards 62% ✗ |
| 2026 | R5 | Wakefield Trinity | 18 – 14 | Leigh Leopards | Wakefield Trinity 66% ✓ |
| 2025 | EF | Leigh Leopards | 26 – 10 | Wakefield Trinity | not priced |
| 2025 | R14 | Wakefield Trinity | 20 – 24 | Leigh Leopards | not priced |
| 2025 | R6 | Leigh Leopards | 14 – 40 | Wakefield Trinity | not priced |

_Alphr's pre-match read was right in 1 of the last 2 decided meetings it priced._

### Positional Matchup

_Season-to-date production per game with league-wide attack/defence tiers (14 teams)._

**Field Matchup** — where one team attacks vs where the other concedes:
- Wakefield Trinity's best path is the right edge: Super League's 3rd-ranked right edge attack (1.44 tries/game) runs at a Leigh Leopards defence ranked 4th there (0.78 conceded/game). Key man: Scott, 11 tries in that channel this season.
- Leigh Leopards' best path is the left edge: Super League's 3rd-ranked left edge attack (1.56 tries/game) runs at a Wakefield Trinity defence ranked 8th there (1.11 conceded/game). Key man: Charnley, 25 tries in that channel this season.

| Channel | Wakefield Trinity | Leigh Leopards |
|---|---|---|
| Left | 1.59/g (att 2nd (strong)) · concedes 1.11/g (def 8th) | 1.56/g (att 3rd (strong)) · concedes 0.52/g (def 1st (strong)) |
| Middle | 1.78/g (att 7th) · concedes 1.3/g (def 2nd (strong)) | 1.59/g (att 9th) · concedes 1.78/g (def 6th) |
| Right | 1.44/g (att 3rd (strong)) · concedes 0.74/g (def 3rd (strong)) | 1.15/g (att 5th (strong)) · concedes 0.78/g (def 4th (strong)) |

**Attack Spine** (Halfback · Five-Eighth · Hooker)

|  | Wakefield Trinity | Leigh Leopards |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 9th | 7th |
| Defence rank | 1st (strong) | 3rd (strong) |
| Tries scored · conceded | 13 · 8 | 14 · 11 |
| Try Assists | 2.2/g | 1.9/g |
| Run Metres | 131m/g | 127m/g |
| Tackle Breaks | 4.3/g | 3.8/g |
| Line Breaks | 0.9/g | 0.7/g |
| Tackle Efficiency | 89.7% | 88.9% |

**Outside Backs** (Fullback · Wingers · Centres)

|  | Wakefield Trinity | Leigh Leopards |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 3rd (strong) | 2nd (strong) |
| Defence rank | 6th | 2nd (strong) |
| Tries scored · conceded | 69 · 48 | 71 · 40 |
| Try Assists | 0.9/g | 1.3/g |
| Run Metres | 473m/g | 514m/g |
| Tackle Breaks | 10.2/g | 13.9/g |
| Line Breaks | 2.9/g | 3.5/g |
| Tackle Efficiency | 84.1% | 85.6% |

**Forwards** (Props · 2nd Rows · Lock)

|  | Wakefield Trinity | Leigh Leopards |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 3rd (strong) | 5th (strong) |
| Defence rank | 6th | 2nd (strong) |
| Tries scored · conceded | 21 · 15 | 19 · 10 |
| Try Assists | 0.4/g | 0.4/g |
| Run Metres | 371m/g | 393m/g |
| Tackle Breaks | 8.7/g | 7.9/g |
| Line Breaks | 0.7/g | 0.9/g |
| Tackle Efficiency | 93.9% | 92.9% |

**Who scores on Leigh Leopards** — Locks 0.08/g (lg 0.06) +33% · Halfbacks 0.19/g (lg 0.2) -5% · Fullbacks 0.22/g (lg 0.26) -15%
**Who scores on Wakefield Trinity** — Fullbacks 0.31/g (lg 0.26) +19% · Locks 0.07/g (lg 0.06) +17% · Centres 0.55/g (lg 0.51) +8%

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

### Try Scorer History — Who Crosses The Line

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

**Wakefield Trinity** (projected 17)

| # | Player | Pos | 2026 | Last 10 | vs opp | Venue | Try % | Alphr play | This game |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Max Jowitt | FB | 3 in 14g | 2/10g (0·0·0·0·0·1·0·1·0·0) | 2/5g | 0/0g | 32% | — | — |
| 2 | Lachlan Walmsley | WG | 7 in 8g | 7/10g (0·0·2·1·0·0·2·0·2·0) | 0/1g | 0/0g | 42% | — | — |
| 3 | Cameron Scott | CE | 11 in 27g | 4/10g (0·0·0·2·0·0·0·0·1·1) | 2/7g | 0/0g | 32% | — | — |
| 4 | Corey Hall | CE | 4 in 20g | 3/10g (0·0·1·0·0·0·1·1·0·0) | 2/6g | 0/0g | 22% | — | — |
| 5 | Tom Johnstone | WG | 18 in 16g | 11/10g (2·1·2·0·1·2·0·0·1·2) | 8/11g | 0/0g | 54% | ⚡ Anytime Try $2.20 AI 37% ✓ Scored; 🎯 First Try $8.00 AI 6% ✗ Not first | 🏉 28' |
| 6 | Jack Sinfield | 5/8 | 3 in 20g | 3/10g (0·1·0·0·1·1·0·0·0·0) | 0/5g | 0/0g | 16% | — | — |
| 7 | Mason Lino | HB | 1 in 9g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0) | 0/8g | 0/0g | 14% | — | — |
| 8 | Mike McMeeken | PR | 2 in 26g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 5/11g | 0/0g | 8% | — | — |
| 9 | Tyson Smoothy | HK | 4 in 26g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0) | 0/2g | 0/0g | 14% | — | 🏉 17' |
| 10 | Ky Rodwell | PR | 1 in 25g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0) | 0/3g | 0/0g | 7% | — | — |
| 11 | Zac Lipowicz | 2R | 6 in 26g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/3g | 0/0g | 14% | — | — |
| 12 | Isaiah Vagana | 2R | 7 in 21g | 7/10g (0·0·0·0·1·2·1·1·2·0) | 0/4g | 0/0g | 20% | ⚡ Anytime Try $3.90 AI 43% ✓ Scored; 🎯 First Try $18.00 AI 7% ✗ Not first | 🏉 44' |
| 13 | Jazz Tevaga | LK | 4 in 21g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/2g | 0/0g | 13% | — | — |
| 14 | Caleb Hamiln-Uele | INT | no games | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0/0g | — | — | — |
| 15 | Caius Faatili | INT | 8 in 23g | 3/10g (2·0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/5g | 0/0g | 20% | — | 🏉 50' |
| 16 | Harvey Smith | INT | 2 in 25g | 2/10g (1·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/5g | 0/0g | 12% | — | — |
| 17 | Jordan Williams | INT | 0 in 4g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/1g | 0/0g | 4% | — | — |
| 18 | Jake Trueman | INT | 4 in 27g | 1/10g (0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/6g | 0/0g | 12% | — | — |
| 19 | Jay Pitts | INT | 2 in 25g | 1/10g (0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/8g | 0/0g | 6% | — | — |
| 20 | Emre Guler | INT | 0 in 3g | 0/3g (0·0·0) | 0/1g | 0/0g | 0% | — | — |
| 21 | Kian McGann | INT | 0 in 2g | 0/2g (0·0) | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0% | — | — |

**Leigh Leopards** (projected 17)

| # | Player | Pos | 2026 | Last 10 | vs opp | Venue | Try % | Alphr play | This game |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | David Armstrong | FB | 9 in 17g | 8/10g (1·2·2·1·0·1·0·0·1·0) | 2/3g | 0/0g | 47% | ⚡ Anytime Try $3.00 AI 43% ✓ Scored | 🏉 39' |
| 2 | Innes Senior | WG | 15 in 27g | 7/10g (0·0·1·1·0·2·2·0·0·1) | 3/8g | 0/0g | 48% | ⚡ Anytime Try $2.90 AI 56% ✓ Scored; 🎯 First Try $12.00 AI 7% ✗ Not first | 🏉 77' |
| 3 | Andrew Badrock | CE | 1 in 11g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/1g | 0/0g | 12% | — | — |
| 4 | Umyla Hanley | CE | 10 in 16g | 8/10g (1·1·1·0·0·1·1·1·2·0) | 2/7g | 0/0g | 48% | ⚡ Anytime Try $3.60 AI 57% ✗ No try; 🎯 First Try $17.00 AI 7% ✗ Not first | — |
| 5 | Josh Charnley | WG | 25 in 24g | 9/10g (4·0·2·0·1·1·0·0·1·0) | 14/16g | 0/0g | 48% | ⚡ Anytime Try $2.60 AI 46% ✗ No try; 🎯 First Try $10.00 AI 5% ✗ Not first | — |
| 6 | Lachlan Lam | 5/8 | 7 in 26g | 4/10g (1·0·1·0·0·0·2·0·0·0) | 3/8g | 0/0g | 24% | ⚡ Anytime Try $7.00 AI 36% ✓ Scored | 🏉 64' |
| 7 | Adam Cook | HB | 6 in 27g | 4/10g (0·1·0·0·0·0·2·0·1·0) | 0/2g | 0/0g | 22% | ⚡ Anytime Try $7.00 AI 44% ✗ No try | — |
| 8 | Joe Ofahengaue | PR | 4 in 22g | 3/10g (0·0·1·0·1·0·1·0·0·0) | 1/3g | 0/0g | 22% | — | — |
| 9 | Liam Horne | HK | 2 in 27g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/6g | 0/0g | 8% | — | — |
| 10 | Jack Hughes | PR | 3 in 20g | 1/10g (0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/17g | 0/0g | 10% | — | — |
| 11 | Jacob Alick-Wiencke | 2R | 7 in 23g | 3/10g (0·1·1·0·0·0·0·0·1·0) | 1/2g | 0/0g | 30% | — | — |
| 12 | Owen Trout | 2R | 3 in 22g | 2/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0·1) | 1/12g | 0/0g | 22% | — | — |
| 13 | Isaac Liu | LK | 0 in 25g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/4g | 0/0g | 4% | — | — |
| 14 | Nathan Wilde | INT | 0 in 1g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/3g | 0/0g | 0% | — | — |
| 15 | Jack Ashworth | INT | 2 in 15g | 1/10g (0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/8g | 0/0g | 10% | — | — |
| 16 | Matty Davis | INT | no games | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0/0g | — | — | — |
| 17 | Edwin Ipape | INT | 3 in 21g | 2/10g (1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0) | 1/7g | 0/0g | 20% | — | — |
| 18 | Ben McNamara | INT | 0 in 16g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/6g | 0/0g | 4% | — | — |
| 19 | Gareth O'Brien | INT | 2 in 25g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 3/16g | 0/0g | 8% | — | — |
| 20 | Louis Brogan | INT | 2 in 24g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0) | 0/3g | 0/0g | 6% | — | — |
| 21 | Alwyn Towse | INT | no games | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0/0g | — | — | — |

### Prediction Breakdown — Pure Alpha Model

**Team ELO Ratings** — Wakefield Trinity 1666 · Leigh Leopards 1643 · ELO difference: 23 in favour of Wakefield Trinity

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

| # | Factor | Weight | Favours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Recent Win Rate | 35.7% | Leigh Leopards |
| 2 | ELO Difference | 15.3% | Wakefield Trinity |
| 3 | Halves Control | 13.5% | Leigh Leopards |
| 4 | Forward Pack | 10.2% | — |
| 5 | Backline Quality | 8.0% | Wakefield Trinity |
| 6 | Venue Advantage | 4.2% | Leigh Leopards |

**Model Confidence: 56%** — Leigh Leopards predicted to win by 5 points · Predicted total: 39 pts

**Record:** 1/4 match 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/super-league/match/2026-ef-wakefield-trinity-v-leigh-leopards
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: 2026-11-01 00:19 UTC (latest tip update)