This would not sit well in my field - I'm a classical pianist - because I'm getting hung up on the role that knowledge ('tacit' or otherwise) plays in what I do, vs. the reality of a very motor-focused activity. Yes, after years of what I'd call deliberate practice, certain heuristics emerge - stylistic conventions, performance practice, what fingerings work in different situations. All fine - and those elements of tacit knowledge are definitely enabling. But in rehearsal and in performance, there's very little cognition going on. It's very much a motor activity. Instead, I rather think that tacit knowledge and deliberate practice interact in mutually-enabling ways. Deliberate practice allows you to build mental models (~tacit knowledge) that serve to enable higher quality practice.

Perhaps I'm missing something here. But the hypothesis that tacit knowledge is more important than deliberate practice - without reference to the field we're talking about - is a bold claim. I know cognitively that the staccato of Mozart is qualitatively different than that of, say, Bartok. But that doesn't do anything until I develop the motor skill to make it so.