First, show some respect! You do realize that other people can have an opinion that differs from yours, don't you?
Also, do you not realize that the best team doesn't necessarily contain the best players?
Do you honestly think you can only play three central defenders if you have top quality center backs?
Sheffield United play 3-5-2 and they have the second best defensive record in English football this season. Do Sheffield United have world class center backs?: Basham, Egan, O'Connell? Would any of those three get into the Tottenham/Manchester United/Arsenal first XI? Are any of those nine what you'd call "top defenders"? Barcelona and Real Madrid aren't going to bid on those players any time soon. On current transfer market value, those three have a combined price tag of £20.5m. Virgil Van Dijk alone, is worth £92.7m.
Sheffield United are in 5th position in the EPL. With the second best defensive record in the EPL. Above the likes of Manchester United (biggest club in the world, by the way), Arsenal, Tottenham, etc. Wolves, too, play with a variant of a 3. They are in 7th. Newcastle were looking in trouble, and destined for the drop, before Bruce decided to scrap a back four and replicate the Rafa Benitez template of 3, now they're 12th and pretty much safe.
And you say that we have to play 5 in midfield? (I'm going to ignore the fact that 3-5-2 IS having 5 in midfield) 4-2-3-1 isn't 5 in midfield. Technically, it's zero in midfield. Anchormen aren't midfielders, nor are wingers and a number 10.
A 3-5-2 would give us 2 box to box midfielders and an anchorman in the middle.
This obsession with 4-2-3-1 has brought us nothing with grief. We cannot play with four at the back. We simply do not have the central defenders for it. Therefore, it's a case of strength in numbers. 3 is harder to break down than 2. Our strongest position is in midfield, so why do people want to play two anchormen, two wingers and a number 10? We don't have the luxury of players with wingers and a number 10 and pretty much emptying the midfield.
Also, Kwhitelaw is absolutely correct when he talks about the striking position. Since we've played with a sole striker all they seem to do is run around like a headless chicken, as they are given nothing but aimless long balls to catch. A second striker would lighten to load on our sole striker. Plus, playing two strikers would engage and occupy two opposing center backs, as opposed to just one,