# Leigh Leopards v Huddersfield Giants — Super League Round 9 2026 AI Prediction by Alphr

## Full Time: Leigh Leopards 30 – 16 Huddersfield Giants

_Leigh Leopards hunt down Huddersfield Giants._

Half time: 20 – 10 · Alphr AI pre-game win probability: Leigh Leopards 72% / Huddersfield Giants 28% · Leigh Sports Village Stadium · Fri, 24 Apr, 05:00 am AEST

**Try Scorers** — Leigh Leopards: AJ Towse (7' 1st), Innes Senior (16'), Lachlan Lam (19'), AJ Towse (25' 1st), Josh Charnley (57'), Josh Charnley (68') · Huddersfield Giants: Adam Swift (13'), Taane Milne (36'), Jacob Gagai (79')

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

| Team | Pre-game AI win probability | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Leigh Leopards | 72% | Won |
| Huddersfield Giants | 28% | Lost |

Model call: **Correct** · Margin: 0.3 predicted → 14 actual · Markets hit: 1/2

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

### Full-Time Report

**Leigh Leopards vs Huddersfield Giants Prediction & Tips | Super League Round 9 2026**

_By Ben Dunlop · Published: 30 May 2026, 07:35 pm · Last updated: 20 June 2026, 08:12 pm_

Leigh Leopards 30–16 Huddersfield Giants in Super League Round 9 at Leigh Sports Village 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 finished with more running metres and more tackle busts than the side that beat them, and neither stat did them any good. The Giants ran for 1,268 metres to Leigh's 1,222 and busted 36 tackles to Leigh's 14, numbers that on paper suggest a team doing plenty right going forward. None of it translated into control of the scoreboard.

The bigger issue was what Huddersfield did with the ball when it mattered. Eight errors to Leigh's four is a heavy toll over 80 minutes, and conceding seven penalties to six didn't help their cause either. All that go-forward work kept getting undone by handing possession, and field position, back to Leigh at the wrong times.

Leigh Leopards won 30-16 at Leigh Sports Village Stadium, and they did most of their damage in a hot 18-minute stretch either side of the quarter mark. AJ Towse opened the scoring in the 7th minute, Adam Swift levelled it for Huddersfield six minutes later, and then Leigh reeled off three tries without reply. Innes Senior crossed in the 16th, Lachlan Lam in the 19th, and Towse again in the 25th, with Adam Cook's boot keeping the conversions ticking over to push it out to 20-4.

Huddersfield's reply came through Taane Milne in the 36th minute, with Tanguy Zenon's conversion the following minute trimming it to 20-10 at the break. That was as close as they got. Leigh scored twice more through Josh Charnley, in the 57th and 68th minutes, stretching it to 28-10 before Adam Cook's conversion made it 30-10. Jacob Gagai's try in the 79th, converted by Zenon, put a slightly flattering 30-16 gloss on the final margin.

On paper, Huddersfield had the stronger spine coming in: backs rated 880 to Leigh's 798, halves 929 to 857, hooker 1026 to 600. None of those edges showed up where it counted. Leigh still won the line break count 7 to 6, and their forward pack, rated 1004 against Huddersfield's 793 before kickoff, did enough early to set the tone the rest of the team built on.

Recent form had these two closer than Saturday's scoreline suggested. Huddersfield came in averaging 22 points a game to Leigh's 15, and conceding 28.8 to Leigh's 21.6, with both clubs carrying similar win-loss patterns over their last five outings. On this occasion Leigh's defence held a higher-scoring outfit to 16 points, while its own attack ran in well above its recent average.

Alphr's model had Leigh as 72% favourites, and that call landed. The margin prediction is where it came unstuck, forecasting a game decided by 0.3 points that Leigh actually won by 14. The total score prediction fared better, tipped at 41 against an actual 46, close enough to call it right. One from two: the winner picked correctly, the margin badly undercooked.

Take it all together and Huddersfield ran the ball hard, broke plenty of tackles doing it, and still lost by two converted tries. Eight errors and a string of penalties handed back to Leigh proved the harder problem to fix, and it cost them a game their underlying numbers say they had no business losing by 14.

**Key Match Stats**

| Leigh Leopards | Stat | Huddersfield Giants |
|---|---|---|
| 1,222 | Run metres | **1,268** |
| **7** | Line breaks | 6 |
| 14 | Tackle busts | **36** |
| 11 | Offloads | **12** |
| **4** | Errors | 8 |
| **6** | Penalties conceded | 7 |

**Scoring Breakdown**

| Leigh Leopards | Stat | Huddersfield Giants |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | Tries | 3 |
| 3/6 | Goals | 2/3 |
| 6 | Penalties Conceded | 7 |
| 4 | Errors | 8 |

**Model Report Card**

Our model correctly predicted Leigh Leopards to win at 72% probability. The margin model missed here, predicting 0.3 but the actual margin was 14 points. Total score prediction of 41 was close to the actual 46, within 5 points. The model went 1/2 on this match.

**Ref Watch: Clean Game** (15/100) — penalties Leigh Leopards 6 · Huddersfield Giants 7.

_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 72.3% — result: WON
- **Line / Spread:** Leigh Leopards — result: WON
- **Margin Band:** Leigh Leopards 1-12 — result: LOST
- **Total (Over/Under):** Over — model probability 50.0% — result: WON
- Predicted margin: Leigh Leopards by 0 · Predicted total: 41

### Match Preview (pre-match read)

The model is firm on Leigh Leopards here: 72% to see off Huddersfield Giants. The heaviest factor is the ratings gap: Leigh Leopards sit 116 ELO points clear, 1490 to 1374.

Leigh Leopards own the matchup too, leading 4 of 7 factors including ELO Difference, Forward Pack and Venue Advantage. A big number on the win and a tighter one on the scoreboard. Back Leigh Leopards to win, not to win big.

_Pre-match read · Alphr model_

### Recent Form (Last 5)

| Leigh Leopards | Stat | Huddersfield Giants |
|---|---|---|
| 2.0 | Wins (Last 5) | 2.0 |
| 15.0pts | Avg Score | 22.0pts |
| 21.6pts | Avg Conceded | 28.8pts |
| -6.6pts | Avg Margin | -6.8pts |
| 1223.4m | Run Metres | 1219.2m |
| 4.0 | Clean Breaks | 4.6 |
| 349.8 | Tackles | 303.6 |
| 8.6 | Errors | 8.6 |

### Form & History

_Last 5 games, oldest → newest._

| Team | Last 5 | Avg Pts |
|---|---|---|
| Leigh Leopards | R4 L · R5 L · R6 W · R7 L · R8 W | 15.0 |
| Huddersfield Giants | R4 L · R5 L · R6 W · R7 W · R8 L | 22.0 |

### H2H History (Last 5) — Leigh Leopards lead 4-1

| Season | Round | Home | Score | Away | Alphr's read |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | R25 | Huddersfield Giants | 30 – 18 | Leigh Leopards | Leigh Leopards 75% ✗ |
| 2025 | R27 | Leigh Leopards | 30 – 16 | Huddersfield Giants | not priced |
| 2025 | R13 | Huddersfield Giants | 24 – 28 | Leigh Leopards | not priced |
| 2025 | R2 | Leigh Leopards | 24 – 10 | Huddersfield Giants | not priced |
| 2024 | — | Huddersfield Giants | 10 – 16 | Leigh Leopards | not priced |

_Alphr's pre-match read was wrong in the one decided meeting 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:
- Leigh Leopards' best path is the middle: Super League's 10th-ranked middle attack (1.13 tries/game) runs at a Huddersfield Giants defence ranked 14th there (2.75 conceded/game). Key man: O'Brien, 2 tries in that channel this season.
- Huddersfield Giants' best path is the middle: Super League's 6th-ranked middle attack (1.88 tries/game) runs at a Leigh Leopards defence ranked 13th there (2.63 conceded/game). Key man: Flanagan, 5 tries in that channel this season.

| Channel | Leigh Leopards | Huddersfield Giants |
|---|---|---|
| Left | 0.63/g (att 9th) · concedes 0.75/g (def 6th) | 0.5/g (att 11th (weak)) · concedes 1.13/g (def 9th) |
| Middle | 1.13/g (att 10th) · concedes 2.63/g (def 13th (weak)) | 1.88/g (att 6th) · concedes 2.75/g (def 14th (weak)) |
| Right | 1/g (att 6th) · concedes 0.5/g (def 1st (strong)) | 0.88/g (att 9th) · concedes 1.13/g (def 6th) |

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

|  | Leigh Leopards | Huddersfield Giants |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 11th (weak) | 8th |
| Defence rank | 12th (weak) | 14th (weak) |
| Tries scored · conceded | 2 · 7 | 3 · 13 |
| Try Assists | 1.4/g | 1.3/g |
| Run Metres | 89m/g | 120m/g |
| Tackle Breaks | 3.3/g | 4/g |
| Line Breaks | 0.4/g | 0.3/g |
| Tackle Efficiency | 88.4% | 87% |

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

|  | Leigh Leopards | Huddersfield Giants |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 10th | 6th |
| Defence rank | 1st (strong) | 6th |
| Tries scored · conceded | 15 · 11 | 18 · 17 |
| Try Assists | 0.9/g | 0.8/g |
| Run Metres | 497m/g | 443m/g |
| Tackle Breaks | 14.5/g | 12.8/g |
| Line Breaks | 2.9/g | 2.6/g |
| Tackle Efficiency | 85.3% | 78% |

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

|  | Leigh Leopards | Huddersfield Giants |
|---|---|---|
| Attack rank | 14th (weak) | 13th (weak) |
| Defence rank | 11th (weak) | 1st (strong) |
| Tries scored · conceded | 1 · 6 | 2 · 2 |
| Try Assists | 0.1/g | 0/g |
| Run Metres | 358m/g | 309m/g |
| Tackle Breaks | 6.8/g | 6.3/g |
| Line Breaks | 0.1/g | 0.5/g |
| Tackle Efficiency | 92.4% | 92.3% |

**Who scores on Huddersfield Giants** — Halfbacks 0.34/g (lg 0.18) +89% · Five-Eighths 0.31/g (lg 0.2) +55% · Centres 0.68/g (lg 0.48) +42%
**Who scores on Leigh Leopards** — Locks 0.06/g (lg 0.05) +20% · Halfbacks 0.18/g (lg 0.18) +0% · Props 0.14/g (lg 0.14) +0%

_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 Leigh Sports Village 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._

**Leigh Leopards** (team sheet)

| # | Player | Pos | 2026 | Last 10 | vs opp | Venue | Try % | Alphr play | This game |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gareth O'Brien | FB | 2 in 8g | 2/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·1) | 7/15g | 0/3g | 18% | — | — |
| 2 | Alwyn Towse | WG | no games | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0/0g | — | — | — |
| 3 | Innes Senior | CE | 4 in 8g | 4/10g (0·0·1·1·0·1·0·1·0·0) | 4/6g | 3/3g | 34% | — | 🏉 16' |
| 4 | Jack Hughes | CE | 1 in 7g | 1/10g (0·0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/17g | 1/3g | 8% | — | — |
| 5 | Josh Charnley | WG | 5 in 8g | 6/10g (1·0·0·1·0·0·1·2·0·1) | 15/15g | 2/3g | 44% | — | 🏉 57' 68' |
| 6 | Adam Cook | 5/8 | 1 in 8g | 1/8g (0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0) | 0/0g | 0/3g | 13% | — | — |
| 7 | Lachlan Lam | HB | 1 in 8g | 1/10g (0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 3/8g | 1/3g | 12% | — | 🏉 19' |
| 8 | Joe Ofahengaue | PR | 0 in 5g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/2g | 0/1g | 13% | — | — |
| 9 | Edwin Ipape | HK | 1 in 3g | 2/10g (0·0·0·0·1·0·0·1·0·0) | 2/7g | 1/1g | 24% | — | — |
| 10 | Robbie Mulhern | PR | 0 in 7g | 1/10g (0·0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/8g | 0/3g | 4% | — | — |
| 11 | Frankie Halton | 2R | 0 in 7g | 1/10g (1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 2/9g | 0/3g | 18% | — | — |
| 12 | Jacob Alick-Wiencke | 2R | 2 in 8g | 2/8g (0·0·0·0·1·0·0·1) | 0/0g | 0/3g | 25% | — | — |
| 13 | Isaac Liu | LK | 0 in 7g | 1/10g (0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/3g | 0/2g | 9% | — | — |
| 14 | Louis Brogan | INT | 0 in 5g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/1g | 0/2g | 0% | — | — |
| 15 | Owen Trout | INT | 0 in 7g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/6g | 0/2g | 12% | — | — |
| 16 | Ben McNamara | INT | 0 in 5g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 1/7g | 0/2g | 8% | — | — |
| 17 | Liam Horne | INT | 1 in 8g | 2/10g (0·1·0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0) | 0/5g | 1/3g | 14% | — | — |

**Huddersfield Giants** (team sheet)

| # | Player | Pos | 2026 | Last 10 | vs opp | Venue | Try % | Alphr play | This game |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Niall Evalds | FB | 2 in 3g | 2/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·1·0) | 3/6g | 0/0g | 20% | — | — |
| 2 | Adam Swift | WG | 0 in 2g | 4/10g (0·0·0·1·0·1·1·1·0·0) | 5/8g | 0/0g | 60% | — | 🏉 13' |
| 3 | Jacob Gagai | CE | 6 in 8g | 7/10g (1·0·0·0·1·0·1·1·2·1) | 0/2g | 0/0g | 49% | — | 🏉 79' |
| 4 | Tanguy Zenon | CE | 2 in 5g | 3/10g (1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·1) | 0/2g | 0/0g | 24% | — | — |
| 5 | Jacob Douglas | WG | 2 in 2g | 5/10g (3·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·1) | 0/0g | 0/0g | 27% | — | — |
| 6 | Tuimoala Lolohea | 5/8 | 0 in 8g | 1/10g (0·1·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/8g | 0/0g | 20% | — | — |
| 7 | Adam Clune | HB | 2 in 3g | 3/10g (1·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·1·0) | 0/4g | 0/0g | 21% | — | — |
| 7 | Tui Lolohea | HB | no games | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0/0g | — | — | — |
| 8 | Fenton Rogers | PR | 0 in 7g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/4g | 0/0g | 2% | — | — |
| 9 | Zac Woolford | HK | 1 in 7g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0) | 0/3g | 0/0g | 5% | — | — |
| 10 | Chris Patolo | PR | 0 in 8g | 0/8g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0% | — | — |
| 11 | Asher O'Donnell | 2R | 0 in 8g | 0/8g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0% | — | — |
| 12 | Harry Rushton | 2R | 0 in 2g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/5g | 0/0g | 6% | — | — |
| 13 | Tristan Powell | LK | 1 in 8g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·1·0·0·0) | 0/2g | 0/0g | 6% | — | — |
| 14 | Oliver Russell | INT | 1 in 7g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1) | 3/5g | 0/0g | 6% | — | — |
| 14 | Olly Russell | INT | no games | 0/0g | 0/0g | 0/0g | — | — | — |
| 15 | George King | INT | 1 in 8g | 1/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·1) | 0/11g | 0/0g | 6% | — | — |
| 16 | Taane Milne | INT | 0 in 8g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/2g | 0/0g | 5% | — | 🏉 36' |
| 17 | Mathieu Cozza | INT | 0 in 8g | 0/10g (0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0·0) | 0/3g | 0/0g | 0% | — | — |

### Prediction Breakdown — Pure Alpha Model

**Team ELO Ratings** — Leigh Leopards 1490 · Huddersfield Giants 1374 · ELO difference: 116 in favour of Leigh Leopards

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

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

**Model Confidence: 72%** — Leigh Leopards favoured in a tight, low-margin contest · Predicted total: 41 pts

**Record:** 1/2 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-r9-leigh-leopards-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: 2026-06-20 10:12 UTC (latest tip update)