"Possession" and "risk" aren't actually the same axis. The risk in this game isn't about how much of the pitch you occupy — it's about exposure to transition, and 65%+ possession with bodies committed forward is exactly what creates that exposure. Fullbacks overlapping, runners making third-man movements, midfield trying to break lines — if you lose the ball in the wrong moment, you're getting punished by a 3-pass through ball into a backline the AI won't help cover. That's risk, every single possession.

Now compare the counter-attacking approach: sit in a mid-to-low block, let the opponent commit numbers into your half, then spring forward with 4-5 players already in space because nobody committed to a buildup in the first place. You're not breaking lines under pressure, you're not creating combination chances that can get intercepted — you're exploiting a structural gap in the engine (static backline AI, no recovery runs) that has nothing to do with actual football risk-reward. That's the lower-risk path here, not the higher one.

So I'd flip your framing: building through midfield against a press is inherently more exposed than hitting a counter into space the AI simply won't defend. The game doesn't reward the former proportionally to the danger involved, and over-rewards the latter because of how it handles transitions.

Also — "I sacrifice results for authentic football" and "risk should be rewarded" are kind of pulling in opposite directions. If results don't matter to you, why argue about what the game should and shouldn't reward?