1. I've seen many great talents have ****** serves and some untalented players have great ones. It seems that more than natural gifts, you need a bulletproof technique along with the right physique.
Of course physique is a factor. It's a factor in virtually everything. You don't see many 145 pounders with heavy forehands, or 5'7 guys serving 140. But Nalbandian wasn't a piece of bologne. He was 5'11 and pretty strong. He didn't have much pace, but he also wasn't a very crafty serve. His slice and kick serves weren't exactly weapons. Rod Laver wasn't the biggest guy but he had a great serve. There are plenty of examples of small guys who weren't big but could compensate for it. Tipsarevic has some pop on his serve. Benjamin Becker is 5'11 yet he was a big server.
Also, bulletproof technique, huh?? Isn't that what makes any
great stroke? The serve is the most important stroke in tennis along with the forehand. There's no way it doesn't take talent to be a great server. If Nalbandian didn't have great technique on his serve, it's a point against him in the talent department.
2. Athleticism is athleticism. If Federer being a better jock means he is a better talent for the game for you, go ahead. I always thought those kind of things are viewed seperately. Also, if you watched some more matches between him and Nalbandian you would see Federer getting drop shotted and wrongfooted a lot.
Federers footwork is unparalled. Gael Monfils, James Blake etc are more "freakish" athletes yet their footwork isn't even close to being as good.
But even disregarding that, if "talent" is something that you are born with, then how does movement/balance/coordination/footwork/ATHLETICISM not fall into that category? It seems as if your criteria for talent is made entirely to support your argument. I'd say footwork can be just as hard to teach as ballstriking.
Federer does things with his God-given athleticism that help him win matches better than other people do (for example Blake), it's not just for show and it's not merely a superfluous advantage. Therefore how can it not be considered a part of talent?