Not as far as his being a brutal commander in Africa. I imagine we can all agree he was a pretty bad guy. Rather, I am talking about his quality as a field commander.
Granted, his record wasn't stellar, but he did not want to go into Egypt after the British, knowing his under-mechanized army would get badly mauled - which it did. However, a general does not always get to pick his battles. Also, he performed very well at Garfagnana, and sent the British and Americans reeling.
In all, while I don't think he was one of history's great generals, I think he was a competent commander, and not worthy of the "worst general of WW2" charge, that I have often seen thrown in his direction.