I think that's a fair assessment.
I do think he was very good in the last few months of the treble season and seemed to be one of the first names on the team sheet, started all the big games. However, it's probably the only high level consistent spell he's had in 3 seasons.
But then he hasn't got the freedom of the pitch he was given at Villa. I do think that's a factor. I just don't think his attributes lend itself to the role he's asked to play at City. He'll do a job there because he's a good and clever player, but I don't think he can excel there, he's a bit stifled.
When you see his Villa highlights and goals, a lot are in parts of the pitch he doesn't go for City, clearly under instructions. That's quite telling.
I really like Jack and I'm glad he's at City, and I'm sure he loves it and what he's won but from a pure footballing perspective, I think he probably would have excelled more in a club that let him just do what he did at Villa. In fact, he'd probably do very well in the current Villa side.
The trade off for Jack is that a club that would let him play more of a free role isn't a team that would get him those medals he has.
It's fair to say he's been disappointing, I can see that. But then I also question how a club can pay 100m for a player, only to not let him play the role that attracted you to him in the first place. I think his lack of impact isn't just down to him.