The aim of training is to in part simulate game conditions in some shape or form.
I'm down with that.
Game sense, although sounding similar, is probably a more specific way to go about game stimulation in specific situations or skills required at a specific time - think the Western Bulldogs crazy handball training from 2016.
That's at the top end where training is state of the art, coaches are a plenty and talent is oozing out of everyone's ears.
At local/amateur level it's completely different.
We have players at such various levels in regards to 4 co-actives of performance that training can ebb and flow from nice and crisp to just downright nasty in regards to how it looks.
NOTE 1 - The 4 co-actives are psychical, psychological, technical and tactical and EVERY training should incorporate as many of these as it can
NOTE 2 - Training doesn't, and shouldn't, always look clean because that means the group as a collective is not being challenged
Have a think about most of the footy training drills you've ever done in your life - it's all about workrate (physical) most of the time irrespective of everything else (psychological, technical, tactical).
Sure we want the skills to be clean but with such a varying degree of skill level between your best player and you're worst player on any given training night, it's hard to enforce 100% technical success in team drills.
At L/A level you should aim to get at least 2 co-actives in every drill.
I'll take an example from my own team training last night.
We broke up into groups of 5 and did a little 4 v 1 keeping's off drill.
Pretty simple stuff but what my group did was has the 4 blokes on offense stand in a square formation.
WTF?
I was moving around trying to create and run into space (tactical/pschological/physical/technical) and they wanted to simply stand on the spot (technical at most).
I instructed them to move around like in a game but they said "all the other groups are doing it" of which I almost lost my shit.
So a game sense type drill designed to hit multiple co-actives (all 4 potentially) soon turned into yet another closed-drill with zero decision making taking place and also a very inefficient one, with only 20% of the team actually doing anything at the 1 time.
Breaking up into small groups is meant to increase training density, not decrease it.
As a coach, your aim should be make up, or modify existing training drills, that hit at least 2 co-actives.
As a player, during closed drills (cone to cone drills with zero opposition = technical only) then you need to find ways to hit another co-active or 2 on your own.
That is how training transfers to playing.