Seriously, if you're reading right now, stop what you are doing, and read this book. It will change your understand of what you are capable of.
[1]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307387305?ie=UTF8&tag=dshe...
What really makes math stand out is there are people who became recognized experts well before that magic 10,000 hour number. EX: Srinivasa Ramanujan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
Quoting from the Wikipedia link: Ramanujan's introduction to formal mathematics began at age 10. He demonstrated a natural ability, and was given books on advanced trigonometry written by S. L. Loney that he mastered by the age of 12; he even discovered theorems of his own, and re-discovered Euler's identity independently. He demonstrated unusual mathematical skills at school, winning accolades and awards. By 17, Ramanujan had conducted his own mathematical research on Bernoulli numbers and the Euler–Mascheroni constant.
7 years at 4 hours per day = 10,000 hours.
Do you think he averaged less than two hours per day on math as a teenager? Based on what little I know about him, I don't think that's the case.
Also, your terminology is the core of the debate here. You say "the less gifted," but the debate is that there may be no "gift", but instead the dominate factor is the willingness of the person to go through a difficult learning method with delayed rewards, in order to become an expert.
I studied math, physics, and computer science as an undergraduate. I spent a lot of extra time learning and practicing software development, while I rarely did math and physics beyond what was needed for coursework. I believe most of my 'deliberate practice' went into CS. I'm now an expert in software development, especially as it relates to biomolecular structures. I firmly believe it is my interest in the topic and the lack of competition (meaning that it pays well) which led me here, and not some intrinsic gift.
In other words, it has never been the case that 10,000 hours is all that's needed, only that that is a minimum number.
However, you reject here Ericsson's entire thesis, that being summarized in the Time article as "Ericsson doesn’t deny that genetic limitations, such as those on height and body size, can constrain expert performance in areas like athletics — and his research has shown this. However, he believes there is no good evidence so far that proves that genetic factors related to intelligence or other brain attributes matter when it comes to less physically driven pursuits."
You made a claim that "innate talent or intellectual capacity" is essential to being an expert. This is a widely held belief, first articulated (I'm told) in Vasari's "The Lives of the Artist" (1568). The debate is - where is the evidence which justifies this widely held belief?
You see a danger in promoting this "meritocracy" ideal. I have two objections to that. First, I think you are using the term incorrectly. Suppose we only have innate talents as part of our genetic nature. Under a meritocracy, those who are naturally smarter, etc. will get a better job or higher position than those who aren't. It doesn't make a difference if it was achieved through deliberative practice or innate nature. Instead, I think the better word is 'egalitarianism.'
Second, it reminds me too much of various view of "noble blood" and rusty arguments that women by nature can't do X, that black people by nature can't do Y, and that Swedes are by nature dumb squareheads. There's any number of these stereotypes once fervently held to be true, but which haven't stood up to the test of time.
Also, there shouldn't be a good argument that "people just need to try harder." Ericsson's view is that "deliberate practice requires effort and does not lead to immediate reward" (quoting from a summary by David Zach Hambrick). There are many good reasons to not become an expert on a topic, including: 1) the person could be interested in becoming an expert in another topic, 2) it can be hard to find the 10,000 hours needed for practice, especially if that time is spent making money needed for rent and food, and 3) other requirements may be missing; it's hard to be an expert surfer if one lives in Colorado, or downhill skier in Miami.
The path towards being an expert in anything is chaotic. I am one of the world experts in writing software for a certain subset of biochemistry. But had I gotten a different job just out of college, I would probably be in a completely different field. It's really hard for me to believe that I was born with this talent, given how much education and job-related experience I had through to get to this point.