He made sense in two systems and was called inconsistent in both.
Ryad Boudebouz was a Ligue 1 number ten through most of his prime. He was creative, technically excellent, capable of changing matches in twenty minutes. He was also frequently dropped, often subbed early, regularly described as not delivering what his quality suggested.
In Algerian football he was framed similarly. Brilliant on his day. Frustrating when he was not on his day. The same vocabulary, in two countries, across a decade.
Here is the thing about Boudebouz. The football was the same. The systems were different. The system around him in France did not extract what he was best at. The system around him with Algeria was variable depending on the coach. In neither environment did he have a coach who built around him in the way he needed to be built around.
The conclusion drawn was that the player was inconsistent. The actual conclusion, available to anyone watching closely, was that the structures were inconsistent and the player adapted as best he could.
He retired without ever getting the season where everything aligned. Players like him often do. The vocabulary of inconsistency is partly accurate and partly a failure of the press to ask harder questions about the environments these players play in.
Watch his Ligue 1 highlights. He was a better player than the consensus framing allowed.