In WWII who was the better General?

Patton was on the winning side but he had an unending supply of men and equipment. Also, he was not shuttled off to a distant theater. He was a damn good motivator of men, and he understood mechanized warefare when few others in the American millitary did.

Rommel was on the losing side, and had most of his army captured in N. Africa. He was, however, hamstrung by supply and manpower issues (and by Hitler being an evil idiot). What he did with the handcuffs on was amazing.

I think the key question in these "match ups" is would Patton have been as successfull had he been in Rommel's sitation and vice versa.