Whether or not to teach grammar explicitly is an issue that has long been debated in the field of SLA. There seems to be a growing consensus among many researchers now in support of embedding some element of explicit instruction within a communicative curriculum. The main arguments in support of explicit instruction are threefold: two widely cited meta-analyses, the fossilization hypothesis, and meeting student expectations. However, none of these arguments are as compelling as they are sometimes made out to be. The studies included in the meta-analyses mostly evaluate explicit knowledge rather than communicative ability; forms that are candidates for fossilization tend to be communicatively redundant anyway; and student expectations stem from common practices, but should not drive them. Furthermore, this article suggests there is a critical element that has been missing from the debate on explicit instruction, namely individual differences between students. The question of whether, which, and how much grammar to teach likely depends on the interests and goals of the particular students being taught. Therefore, arguments for or against explicit instruction should always consider the context rather than seeking a one-size-fits-all best practice.