With or without article

e.g.
- He has a great talent for cooking.
- He is an excellent footballer. He has great talent.

Note the correct spelling of "talent."

teechre.g.- He has a great talent for cooking.- He is an excellent footballer. He has great talent.Note the correct spelling of "talent."

Thanks a lot, teechr. Yes, I did not notice that I spelled talent incorrectly.

So what does the use and exclusion of the indefinite article imply in each case? It seems that 'a great talent' implies so much talent f

It's a matter of usage.
With "a great talent", you usually need to specify in the same sentence what the talent is for.
With "great talent", the overall textual context makes it clear what talent is being referred to.

teechrIt's a matter of usage.With "a great talent", you usually need to specify in the same sentence what the talent is for.With "great talent", the overall textual context makes it clear what talent is being referred to.

Oh I see. So it is not related to the extent of talent or a specified talent. They both imply the same thing, amount of talent for something

teechrWith "a great talent", you usually need to specify in the same sentence

I don't entirely agree with that. For instance, one might say

I've seen Mark play soccer. Oh boy, he sure has a great talent.

IvanhrI've seen Mark play soccer. Oh boy, he sure has a great talent.

I kind of can see that too. So I am confused!

AnonymousWhat is the difference between ‘a great talent’ and ‘great talent’ such as in my examples in your opinion?

I don't see any.

That said, 'great talent' can also mean 'people of great talent', so your sentence can also be interpreted as 'He has people of great talent (working for him), provided that he owns a company (or similar)'.