This article responds to Jordan and Gray's critique of the global coursebook and the call to have open, critical discussions about coursebook use in light of SLA research (Jordan and Gray 2019). I?make a case for why the assumptions made about what constitutes a global coursebook are too narrow. I?also dismiss the idea of one type of global coursebook and that the two coursebooks mentioned as examples of a typical global coursebook follow a wholly synthetic syllabus with an explicit instruction model. Most modern global coursebooks, I?posit, have both synthetic and analytic characteristics. I?point to research which gives evidence in support of the benefit of explicit instruction within the context of communicative language practice. In defence of publishers, I?present an alternative viewpoint showing that major publishers do not simply publish coursebooks with little regard to educational research in pursuit of profit. I?end by addressing the issue of why a coursebook--or course package--can be a valuable set of resources for teachers.