I believe the some of the premises stated are incorrect.
Yes, practice is necessary for ultimate success. But is it sufficient soley in and of iteslf?
I am a 5'5" male. I am under no delusions that I can run as fast as a man 6'2", assuming we both put in the practice and training appropriate for our bodies. It is simple physics: given otherwise similar conditions, the longer stride of a taller man will provide an unassailable advantage. Take it to the extreme: a 50' man walking can beat a 6' man running. Let's see an ant outrun a human being.
I stated once here on AZB that as a drummer, no matter how much I practiced, I could not attain the speed and precision exhibited by jazz great Buddy Rich. My physiology did not permit it. Mr. Rich said he never practiced. He was not a good sight-reader. He didn't have to be. He could hear an arrangement once and know how to play drums to it immediately. My brain is not wired to command my muscles to drum like Buddy Rich. My brain is not wired to hear a composition once and remember its intimate details.
Some people are born with eidetic memories. I am not thusly blessed. I propose that something like an eidetic memory can be an advantage to a pool player in that the many instances of a particular very similar shot can be approached using infallible recall on how the shot was hit in the past, based on a sufficient amount of practice. Also, the communication between muscles and the brain, the so-called "muscle memory", just as physiques can greatly vary between humans, so can also similarly vary widely.
I interpret "natural talent" as the brain's innate ability to learn, internalize, and command muscles to act in a specific way. In some humans this connectivity is simply better than in other humans. Yes, the difference can be narrowed with additional practice, but while practice is a necessary component, IMHO, it is not sufficient. There needs to be the innate component to fully leverage the practice, and in some, this "natural talent" is stronger than in others.