Based on that, 3-5-2 is the same as 4-1-2-1-2 or 4-2-2-2 or 4-4-2 or 3-1-4-1-1. It is always 10 players, isn't it?
Obviously there is no industry standard how a certain formation has to be played to avoid the Fifa police giving you a fine but there are differences in the intepretation of certain formations. 3-5-2 is different to a 5-2-1-2 (like us yesterday) because the first has wingbacks who spent just as much emphasis of their game in attack while the latter solidifies its defense by adding fullbacks. Yesterday Shaw and AWB played exactly like they did against Liverpool as Fullbacks. A 3-4-1-2 is also different to a 3-4-3 as the latter usually makes some use of two inside forwards (with either wide or narrow starting positions) next to one traditional striker or something like a false-9 while the first formation employs 2 traditional strikers backed by a classic playmaker.
No.
A 3-5-2 doesn't have fullbacks at all. If it has, it is a 5-3-2 because fullbacks are defenders first while wingbacks are attackers and defenders to the exact same degree.
And against a well coached team you can fail and succeed with every formation. If the formation would be deciding factor in that, any team would play the same way. But it isn't - the formation is more a symptom than a motive (in my philisophical stance) that follows the plan I have in attack and defense while making the best use of the players I have at my disposal.