Philip II was the son of Charles V. He inherited a massive colonial empire. And were his father had many successes in five wars against France, even in some smaller battles against the Arabs, his son didn't have that much succes. He fought an eighty year war against the republic, which he in a way he lost. He led a big armada to England and was defeated although his great resources from his colonies. He had a very strict rule towards Catholicism severly punished anyone who thaught otherwise. His father although not a perfect monarch, he didn't win every battle (like Algiers or in a way in Hungary) has had more succes in politics then his son. Is this view that I have of Philip II as a less competent monarch correct? Or was it rather that the other state's were beginning to get more powerfull? Is it right to assume that with the beginning of Philip Spain was getting in decline in Europe? Or am I just totally wrong and am I missing some important facts?
I think Philip II was always doomed to stand in the shadow of his father, but that's mainly because of how impressive Charles V was, rather than due to failures of Philip II. Philip was by all means a very competent ruler and in general, the "golden age" of the Spanish empire happened during his reign rather than before it.
Philip's problems aren't only that Charles' accomplishments were so impressive, he also gets defined by his losses rather than his wins. This is of course rather unfair. Not only because it downplays the many achievements of Philip, but also because some of those losses came from a drastically different situation than the one Charles had to face. The religious struggles, which would define the period, were faced by both father and son. Charles came into power just as the Reformation kicked off, but when Philip ascended the throne the Reformation was there to stay and had gained in power significantly. Ultimately, both Philip and Charles had a very similar approach to Protestantism - a very harsh approach. And for both, this approach failed. Charles couldn't prevent Protestantism from spreading in Germany and the Netherlands, Philip lost the Netherlands partially due to the religious conflict. It seems that, arguably, even Charles couldn't have held onto the Netherlands at that point.
As to the loss of the Spanish Armada, it really was quite the loss, yes. But it's an iconic event, not indicative of his reign or even the war itself (which was a stalemate).
As to his wins, they're often forgotten. I think that's natural, Charles' rapid and impressive expansion will always look more impressive. Philip focussed more on consolidation, which is arguably just as impressive. But that's not to say that Philip didn't expand as well - he pressed on with the colonial efforts of his father in the Americas and started expansion into the Philippines. He also incorporated Portugal and their empire into the Iberian Union. He consolidated the Italian Habsburg lands and removed French influence from the Italian peninsula, while subjugating the various Italian city states to Spanish rule. Perhaps more impressively, he led the Holy League against the Ottomans and finally set back the Ottoman ambitions at the Battle of Lepanto.
I think maybe the most fair summary would be to say that Philip II was a greatly different monarch than his father. In a different situation, a different time, a different position. If Charles V was the greatest monarch of the Spanish empire, then Philip certainly came in a not too distant second.