I am far from a position of giving the most in-depth input here, but I would let it suffice to say that talent and accomplishment are two different things. Yet still, skill and talent are two different things, though subtly, and others cannot determine whether the reason you struggle is for lack of talent. Here are potential definitions that show why:
Skill- Proficiency acquired over time in and for executing a task. (Proficiency improved by experience)
Talent- A natural tendency to show proficiency in a given task.
Tendency: A quality that is identified by what its effects would be without limitations on that quality.
Now ask yourself this question (but only if you agree with the above definitions): Can a person whose senses are bound by limitations of time and space identify whether the reason you lack proficiency improved over time (a limitation of the senses and the display of proficiency) is because you lack the quality necessary to show it when that quality is only identified in the absence of limitations on it? If I assume the role of a harsh critic, then I might exemplify what I mean by stating the essence of the critic's thoughts like this:
"My senses, which are limited, tell me that you lack skill. This is provable by watching your proficiency, bound by the same limitations as my senses. As for why you lack skill, it is because you lack the ability to show it to my senses."
In short, the critic determines that because you do not show them proficiency, you necessarily lack what it takes to do so satisfactorily. I consider it a fallacy that anyone but the possessor is capable of determining definitively what and where their talents are or are not. Do you?