The 4-2-3-1 does seem perfect for the current squad
This.
Friday can be seen as confirmation that 4-2-3-1 is the way forward.
3-5-2 is problematic for a few reasons:
1. It means that our primary creative threat (Adams) is shackled with defensive duties as a RWB. (Yes, he played in this position at Bury but they played in a very gung ho manner which Curle has neither the personnel nor the inclination to replicate).
2. It means that the defence has fewer simple passing options ahead of them, leading inevitably to panic hoofs up to the centre forwards which bypass the midfield entirely.
3. We don't have anything resembling a cohesive front two partnership. As many have said, Smith and Williams are simply too similar.
4. It makes us too predictable (see 2 and 3)
In contrast, 4-2-3-1, which is the formation which Wilder played for much of our title-winning season, is a much better fit. Hoskins isn't a striker; nor is he a winger. However, I've always thought that his best position is as a roving inside forward behind the striker where his pace and close control can cause havoc.
A fluid front four of Smith, Adams, Warburton and Hoskins could be genuinely dangerous and unpredictable at this level. Moreover, McCormack and Lines would seem to be perfect to act as a defensive midfielder and deep-lying playmaker respectively, with McWilliams providing able back up.
Like many, I fully expect Curle to revert back to 3-5-2 (particularly following the signing of Wharton) or to tinker back and forth from 3-5-2 to 4-2-3-1. I just hope he has learnt from the MK game and realises that he could have a good thing on his hands if he deploys his personal correctly.