I have heard this hundreds of times on MTF. "Richard Gasquet/David Nalbandian/Whoever has as much/more talent than Federer"
Even if you do not believe this, does anybody understand how people know this?
The only quantifiable way of measuring talent to me is results. Federer has 16 slams. Gasquet + Nalbandian (x1323023) = 0 slams.
It is very possible that Nalbandian and Gasquet have more talent than Federer in tennis ... but for all we know, so do I, right? I have never taken a formal tennis lesson, who is to say I do not have more natural/undeveloped talent than Federer. For that matter, Lebron James would probably be very talented at tennis if he started playing at the same age as Federer.
So, the question is: On what grounds do people measure talent other than by results? It is not as though Nalbandian and Gasquet are skipping the slams or anything. They are there too, and probably trying very hard during them.
What about actually watching the players play the game? Could that give something? Maybe look at things like how cleanly they strike the ball, how they can use their FH/BH at different spots in the court. How they hit winners and what type of winners. How their "feel" for the ball looks at dropshots, volleyshots etc. Lots of things to look at even if you never played tennis yourself (Like I have, not on top level though) but then even the commentators make a lot of good points during matches about "talent".
I'd would be insane to say that guys like Nalbandian, Safin (and maybe a little Gasquet, never that sold on him, mostly that crazy good BH) aren't insanely talented and should have done better results. Why they didn't doesn't necessarily have to do with talent...