# Wakefield Trinity v Huddersfield Giants — Super League Round 16 2026 AI Prediction by Alphr

## Full Time: Wakefield Trinity 29 – 23 Huddersfield Giants

_Wakefield Trinity edge Huddersfield Giants in a tight one._

Half time: 16 – 12 · Alphr AI pre-game win probability: Wakefield Trinity 87% / Huddersfield Giants 13% · The Diy Kitchens Stadium · Mon, 29 June, 12:00 am AEST

**Try Scorers** — Wakefield Trinity: Tom Johnstone (8' 1st Tipped 🎯), Mike McMeeken (11'), Jack Sinfield (36'), Josh Rourke (56' Tipped ⚡), Josh Rourke (79' Tipped ⚡) · Huddersfield Giants: Jacob Gagai (21'), Cole Geyer (27'), Asher O'Donnell (41'), Adam Swift (65' Tipped ⚡)

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

| Team | Pre-game AI win probability | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Wakefield Trinity | 87% | Won |
| Huddersfield Giants | 13% | Lost |

Model call: **Correct** · Margin: 16.7 predicted → 6 actual · Markets hit: 3/4

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

### Full-Time Report

**Wakefield Trinity vs Huddersfield Giants Prediction & Tips | Super League Round 16 2026**

_By Ben Dunlop · Published: 26 June 2026, 10:45 pm · Last updated: 25 Sept 2026, 08:49 pm_

Wakefield Trinity 29–23 Huddersfield Giants in Super League Round 16 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.

Huddersfield Giants put up a fight but fell short against Wakefield Trinity, losing 29-23 at The Diy Kitchens Stadium. They managed to keep their errors to nine, one less than Wakefield's ten, and turned their possession into points with tries from Jacob Gagai, Cole Geyer, Asher O'Donnell, and Adam Swift. However, their defence struggled, particularly against Wakefield's backs.

Wakefield's attacking prowess was evident from the start. Tom Johnstone opened the scoring just eight minutes in, setting the tone for a strong performance. Wakefield ran for 1,515 metres compared to Huddersfield's 1,039, and broke the line nine times to Huddersfield's five. This pressure and execution left the Giants playing catch-up.

At half-time, Wakefield led 16-12. The second half saw Asher O'Donnell level the score for Huddersfield, and George Flanagan's conversion put them ahead 18-16. But Wakefield responded with a penalty goal from Max Jowitt to level it at 18-all. Their ability to capitalise on small openings was key, with 41 tackle busts to Huddersfield's 36. Wakefield's forwards, rated at 858, outperformed Huddersfield's 697, providing a solid platform for their backs.

Josh Rourke's two tries were crucial, with his second coming in the final moments to secure the win for Wakefield. Adam Swift's try for Huddersfield at the 65th minute tied the game again, but Wakefield's late push, capped by Jowitt's conversion, extended their lead to six points.

Pre-match, the model gave Wakefield an 87% chance of winning, predicting a 16.7-point margin. The actual six-point margin was narrower, but Wakefield still met expectations. The match total of 52 points was just under the predicted 55.5. Huddersfield covered their line and showed potential, but couldn't clinch the win.

Positional strengths played out as expected. Wakefield's backs, rated 1135, outclassed Huddersfield's 792. Although Huddersfield's halves were stronger on paper at 1000 to 793, they couldn't leverage this advantage. The hookers were evenly matched, but Wakefield's forwards dominated, setting the stage for their backs to excel.

Huddersfield's recent form continued to disappoint, with their last five matches ending in defeat. Wakefield, on the other hand, came in strong, winning four of their last five. Their average scores and margins were significantly better, averaging 30.4 points per game compared to Huddersfield's 10.4. This form translated into their victory.

In the end, Huddersfield showed determination, but Wakefield's superior attack and defence secured the win. The numbers tell the story: Wakefield's execution and strength in key areas made the difference.

**Key Match Stats**

| Wakefield Trinity | Stat | Huddersfield Giants |
|---|---|---|
| **1,515** | Run metres | 1,039 |
| **9** | Line breaks | 5 |
| **41** | Tackle busts | 36 |
| **13** | Offloads | 8 |
| 10 | Errors | **9** |
| 3 | Penalties conceded | 3 |

**Scoring Breakdown**

| Wakefield Trinity | Stat | Huddersfield Giants |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Tries | 4 |
| 4/7 | Goals | 3/4 |
| 1 | Field Goals | 1 |
| 3 | Penalties Conceded | 3 |
| 10 | Errors | 9 |

**Model Report Card**

Our model correctly predicted Wakefield Trinity to win at 87% probability. The predicted margin of 16.7 was reasonable against the actual 6-point result. The model went 6/17 on this match. Huddersfield Giants covered the 18.5-point line. The under 55.5 total call was correct.

**Ref Watch: Clean Game** (23/100) — penalties Wakefield Trinity 3 · Huddersfield Giants 3.

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

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

- **Head to Head:** Wakefield Trinity to win — model probability 87.4% — result: WON
- **Line / Spread:** Huddersfield Giants +18.5 — model probability 87.4% — result: WON
- **Margin Band:** Wakefield Trinity 13-24 — model probability 87.4% — result: LOST
- **Total (Over/Under):** Under 55.5 — model probability 50.0% — result: WON
- Predicted margin: Wakefield Trinity by 17 · Predicted total: 45

### Match Preview (pre-match read)

The model is firm on Wakefield Trinity here: 87% to see off Huddersfield Giants. The heaviest factor is the ratings gap: Wakefield Trinity sit 367 ELO points clear, 1603 to 1236. Form leans Wakefield Trinity's way: 4 from their last 5, against 0 for Huddersfield Giants.

Wakefield Trinity own the matchup too, leading 5 of 7 factors including ELO Difference, Forward Pack and Backline Quality. The margin model has Wakefield Trinity by 16.7, with the two sides combining for about 45. Wakefield Trinity to win, and win clearly. The model isn't hedging.

_Pre-match read · Alphr model_

### Recent Form (Last 5)

| Wakefield Trinity | Stat | Huddersfield Giants |
|---|---|---|
| 4.0 | Wins (Last 5) | 0.0 |
| 30.4pts | Avg Score | 10.4pts |
| 22.0pts | Avg Conceded | 37.6pts |
| 8.4pts | Avg Margin | -27.2pts |
| 1268.0m | Run Metres | 1085.2m |
| 6.2 | Clean Breaks | 1.8 |
| 277.0 | Tackles | 339.0 |
| 8.4 | Errors | 11.0 |

### Form & History

_Last 5 games, oldest → newest._

| Team | Last 5 | Avg Pts |
|---|---|---|
| Wakefield Trinity | R11 W · R12 W · R13 W · R14 L · R15 W | 30.4 |
| Huddersfield Giants | R11 L · R12 L · R13 L · R14 L · R15 L | 10.4 |

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

| Season | Round | Home | Score | Away |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | R2 | Huddersfield Giants | 16 – 18 | Wakefield Trinity |
| 2025 | R24 | Wakefield Trinity | 48 – 2 | Huddersfield Giants |
| 2025 | R19 | Huddersfield Giants | 10 – 46 | Wakefield Trinity |
| 2023 | R19 | Huddersfield Giants | 34 – 6 | Wakefield Trinity |
| 2023 | R3 | Wakefield Trinity | 0 – 8 | Huddersfield Giants |

### 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 (1.6 tries/game) runs at a Huddersfield Giants defence ranked 13th there (1.67 conceded/game). Key man: Pratt, 11 tries in that channel this season.
- Huddersfield Giants' best path is the right edge: Super League's 11th-ranked right edge attack (0.87 tries/game) runs at a Wakefield Trinity defence ranked 4th there (0.87 conceded/game). Key man: Gagai, 8 tries in that channel this season.

| Channel | Wakefield Trinity | Huddersfield Giants |
|---|---|---|
| Left | 1.6/g (att 2nd (strong)) · concedes 1/g (def 7th) | 0.4/g (att 14th (weak)) · concedes 1.2/g (def 9th) |
| Middle | 1.6/g (att 9th) · concedes 1.47/g (def 5th (strong)) | 1.33/g (att 11th (weak)) · concedes 2.73/g (def 14th (weak)) |
| Right | 1.6/g (att 3rd (strong)) · concedes 0.87/g (def 4th (strong)) | 0.87/g (att 11th (weak)) · concedes 1.67/g (def 13th (weak)) |

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

|  | Wakefield Trinity | Huddersfield Giants |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 9th | 9th |
| Defence rank | 3rd (strong) | 14th (weak) |
| Tries scored · conceded | 5 · 5 | 5 · 16 |
| Try Assists | 2.3/g | 0.9/g |
| Run Metres | 138m/g | 111m/g |
| Tackle Breaks | 4.1/g | 3.3/g |
| Line Breaks | 0.5/g | 0.4/g |
| Tackle Efficiency | 90.6% | 88.2% |

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

|  | Wakefield Trinity | Huddersfield Giants |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 3rd (strong) | 12th (weak) |
| Defence rank | 7th | 10th |
| Tries scored · conceded | 42 · 31 | 25 · 36 |
| Try Assists | 0.9/g | 0.6/g |
| Run Metres | 427m/g | 481m/g |
| Tackle Breaks | 9.5/g | 14.3/g |
| Line Breaks | 3.1/g | 2.1/g |
| Tackle Efficiency | 85% | 80% |

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

|  | Wakefield Trinity | Huddersfield Giants |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 4th (strong) | 14th (weak) |
| Defence rank | 6th | 11th (weak) |
| Tries scored · conceded | 11 · 9 | 4 · 12 |
| Try Assists | 0.4/g | 0.1/g |
| Run Metres | 345m/g | 294m/g |
| Tackle Breaks | 8.7/g | 5.7/g |
| Line Breaks | 0.8/g | 0.3/g |
| Tackle Efficiency | 93.8% | 93% |

**Who scores on Huddersfield Giants** — Halfbacks 0.33/g (lg 0.19) +74% · Centres 0.74/g (lg 0.49) +51% · Five-Eighths 0.28/g (lg 0.2) +40%
**Who scores on Wakefield Trinity** — Locks 0.09/g (lg 0.06) +50% · Fullbacks 0.37/g (lg 0.25) +48% · Centres 0.6/g (lg 0.49) +22%

_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** (team sheet)

| # | Player | Pos | 2026 | Last 10 | vs opp | Venue | Try % | Alphr play | This game |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Max Jowitt | FB | 1 in 8g | 2/10g (1·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0) | 2/14g | 5/15g | 32% | — | — |
| 2 | Joshua Rourke | WG | no games | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0/0g | — | ⚡ Anytime Try $1.89 AI 44% ✓ Scored | 🏉 56' 79' |
| 3 | Cameron Scott | CE | 5 in 15g | 3/10g (0·1·1·0·0·0·0·1·0·0) | 3/8g | 6/16g | 32% | — | — |
| 4 | Jay Pitts | CE | 1 in 15g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0) | 3/11g | 2/20g | 6% | — | — |
| 5 | Tom Johnstone | WG | 9 in 7g | 11/10g (0·2·0·0·2·0·4·0·1·2) | 8/12g | 9/15g | 48% | ⚡ Anytime Try $1.62 AI 86% ✓ Scored; 🎯 First Try $8.00 AI 16% ✓ Scored first | 🏉 8' |
| 6 | Jake Trueman | 5/8 | 3 in 15g | 3/10g (0·2·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0) | 5/12g | 3/14g | 12% | ⚡ Anytime Try $3.70 AI 44% ✗ No try | — |
| 7 | Jack Sinfield | HB | 0 in 11g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/4g | 0/6g | 8% | — | 🏉 36' |
| 8 | Mike McMeeken | PR | 1 in 15g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1) | 7/18g | 1/19g | 10% | — | 🏉 11' |
| 9 | Tyson Smoothy | HK | 2 in 14g | 2/10g (0·1·0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/1g | 0/6g | 17% | — | — |
| 10 | Ky Rodwell | PR | 0 in 14g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/1g | 0/9g | 3% | — | — |
| 11 | Seth Nikotemo | 2R | 5 in 14g | 4/10g (0·0·0·1·0·0·1·0·0·2) | 2/2g | 3/16g | 24% | ⚡ Anytime Try $3.00 AI 57% ✗ No try | — |
| 12 | Isaiah Vagana | 2R | 0 in 11g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/3g | 1/15g | 2% | — | — |
| 13 | Jazz Tevaga | LK | 4 in 10g | 4/10g (0·0·0·0·1·0·1·1·0·1) | 0/1g | 2/5g | 40% | ⚡ Anytime Try $5.90 AI 72% ✗ No try | — |
| 14 | Caleb Hamiln-Uele | INT | no games | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0/0g | — | — | — |
| 15 | Harvey Smith | INT | 0 in 13g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/3g | 2/17g | 6% | — | — |
| 16 | Tray Lolesio | INT | 1 in 11g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/2g | 0/4g | 10% | — | — |
| 17 | Will Tate | INT | 5 in 6g | 8/10g (0·0·0·3·1·2·0·0·2·0) | 0/1g | 5/4g | 41% | ⚡ Anytime Try $2.00 AI 84% ✗ No try; 🎯 First Try $11.00 AI 15% ✗ Not first | — |

**Huddersfield Giants** (team sheet)

| # | Player | Pos | 2026 | Last 10 | vs opp | Venue | Try % | Alphr play | This game |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | George Flanagan | FB | 6 in 7g | 6/10g (0·0·0·1·2·1·1·1·0·0) | 2/2g | 0/1g | 45% | ⚡ Anytime Try $2.75 AI 49% ✗ No try; 🎯 First Try $17.00 AI 19% ✗ Not first | — |
| 2 | Adam Swift | WG | 3 in 5g | 7/10g (1·0·1·1·1·0·0·1·1·1) | 9/13g | 0/0g | 68% | 🎯 First Try $13.00 AI 15% ✗ Not first | 🏉 65' |
| 3 | Jacob Gagai | CE | 8 in 15g | 6/10g (1·2·1·1·0·0·0·1·0·0) | 1/3g | 0/1g | 44% | — | 🏉 21' |
| 4 | Lewis Jagger | CE | no games | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0/0g | — | — | — |
| 5 | Taane Milne | WG | 1 in 14g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/3g | 0/1g | 9% | — | — |
| 6 | Oliver Russell | 5/8 | 2 in 12g | 2/10g (0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0·1·0) | 0/9g | 0/4g | 10% | — | — |
| 7 | Tuimoala Lolohea | HB | 0 in 15g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 4/10g | 0/0g | 16% | — | — |
| 8 | Fenton Rogers | PR | 0 in 13g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/2g | 0/1g | 2% | — | — |
| 9 | Kieran Rush | HK | 0 in 10g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/3g | 0/1g | 2% | — | — |
| 10 | Chris Patolo | PR | 0 in 15g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/1g | 0/0g | 0% | — | — |
| 11 | Asher O'Donnell | 2R | 1 in 14g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0) | 0/1g | 0/0g | 8% | — | 🏉 41' |
| 12 | Zane Dunford | 2R | 0 in 1g | 0/1g (0) | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0% | — | — |
| 13 | Tristan Powell | LK | 1 in 15g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/3g | 0/1g | 3% | — | — |
| 14 | Cole Geyer | INT | 1 in 4g | 1/4g (0·0·0·1) | 0/0g | 0/0g | 25% | — | 🏉 27' |
| 15 | Matthew English | INT | no games | 2/10g (0·0·0·0·0·1·0·1·0·0) | 0/1g | 0/0g | 17% | — | — |
| 16 | Mathieu Cozza | INT | 0 in 14g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/2g | 0/9g | 0% | — | — |
| 17 | George King | INT | 1 in 15g | 1/10g (0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/14g | 0/0g | 6% | — | — |

### Prediction Breakdown — Pure Alpha Model

**Team ELO Ratings** — Wakefield Trinity 1603 · Huddersfield Giants 1236 · ELO difference: 367 in favour of Wakefield Trinity

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

| # | Factor | Weight | Favours |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ELO Difference | 15.0% | Wakefield Trinity |
| 2 | Forward Pack | 12.0% | Wakefield Trinity |
| 3 | Backline Quality | 10.0% | Wakefield Trinity |
| 4 | Recent Win Rate | 10.0% | Wakefield Trinity |
| 5 | Halves Control | 9.0% | Huddersfield Giants |
| 6 | Venue Advantage | 8.0% | — |
| 7 | H2H History | 6.0% | Wakefield Trinity |

**Model Confidence: 87%** — Wakefield Trinity predicted to win by 17 points · Predicted total: 45 pts

**Record:** 3/4 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-r16-wakefield-trinity-v-huddersfield-giants
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: 2026-09-25 10:49 UTC (latest tip update)