Oh I know that most of the forum doesn't get this, but most of the forum doesn't really get the intricacies of tennis. Talent with the racquet like Gasquet has only goes so far, and that talent is negated a lot because he isn't a good mover and he doesn't have the mental fortitude to succeed in the most crucial moments.
Nadal isn't my favourite to watch but I have never doubted his ability, even if it is different to a degree to that of Federer's. You don't hit passes from 10 ft behind the baseline without having excellent racquet control and timing, and as someone who prides himself on mental strength when playing tennis, it's clear to me that having a good head is a talent in itself - because when the pressure is highest it is the most difficult thing to do to control your nerves (which affects the body).
Bottom line is, no tennis player that has had great success has done so just with talent alone. Besides, I think every player is talented to some degree - you can't be a pro without talent. Obviously some are shotmakers, big servers, grinders, etc, but at its core tennis is a game that requires talent regardless of what style you play.
I think it is important to understand that there is a difference between being talented at a particular sport AND being a talented athlete
it is entirely subjective on how you gauge talent because of this
Gasquet is one of the most 'talented' players on the planet but he's not a great athlete. in the end you can't qualify or quantify talent because there are too many variables and results alone mean nothing in relation to this (at least on a grand scale or average).
I think Kyle makes a good point that obviously at the PRO level with pretty much all top 100 players they automatically must be VERY talented and that can sometimes not be appreciated. like he mentions, the real difference between all of the players at that point, because they all DO have some degree of greatness or wonderful shot, is how they apply themselves. physically, mentally, emotionally, preparation wise, study wise, relationship wise, etc.
we watch someone like Davydenko a few years ago and it's easy to immediately think just based on watching him that he's more talented than, say, a Nadal. but mechanically he's not at all. The biggest problem with gauging talent, and this is not unique to this sport, is that often as humans we correlate 'greatness' to what is most aesthetically pleasing to the eyes