I think you might have inadvertently contradicted yourself in your post. There is a difference between traditional and functional training because many programs don’t do the things that you outlined, which is exactly why a concept like “functional training” has to be categorized. Some coaches and athletes don’t understand their sport well enough to accurately determine the demands of their sporting event, and they don’t understand which movements in the weight room transfer to the event. Athletes learn in high school to trust their coach and not question his coaching, even though it may have been 40 years since he competed, or he may have no experience in that sport. All coaches at my high school were there to coach football, so good pole vault coaching was hard for me to come by.
For a concept like “functional training” to be distributed, is has to be packaged and directed at the people who don’t understand how to do the things that you outlined. Crossfit is probably the best example of how the concept has been packaged, and as a result “functional” is quickly becoming the big buzzword of the fitness industry. The program fails to directly address the demands of the sport and account for the individual athlete, but since the program incorporates 1) multiple joint, 2) multiple plane, 3) and is proprioceptively demanding, it gives coaches and athletes the Cliffs Notes to athletic training, which is good enough for some programs.