I don't think he was the perfect teammate, but i can completely relate to what he did (or what i think he did) if in fact he was told explicitly more than once, that under no circumstances he was allowed to win, even during the race and under certain conditions. What fcked up bullsht is that? Why would a national coach even care which riders wins, as long as he's wearing the right shirt. Again, this wasn't team Belgium, it was team Van Aert.
Van Aert felt good knowing he was the undisputed leader, that it was clear for everyone. It gave him peace of mind. If you want that level of dedication from your team, you better be completely sure you have the legs to finish the job or at least come close. It's the most important race of the year, and it's the only race that you ride for your national flag, not for personal glory. It turns out he didn't have the legs, so maybe it's time to dial it down acknowledge the tactics were crap, acknowledge that they were wrong and that the team should not have ridden only for Van Aert but should have been more flexible.
You may think i have a thing against Van Aert, but that couldn't be further from the truth. In case you doubt that, feel free to browse my post history in the CX forum as well as the road forum. I have always rooted for him probably even more than anyone else. But the tactics here were simply complete rubbish, and it wasn't his place to counter Evenepoel in the press. While Evenepoel's showing in Extra Time Koers was clearly well prepared, i do not think he told a lie.
That's strange, because i remember hearing him say, that the plan was to use Remco to his strengths in the offense, because he put fear into the other teams. I'm not sure exactly how Remco is putting fear into other teams by riding the final as a glorified leadout. So Van Aert's story is wonky at best here.
As i explained, this is simply not how cycling works. Even Merckx knows that much. First of all, we participated as Belgium, not as Team Van Aert. It should not matter who wins of the team. There is no issue with having a clear leader, but you simply can't defend the idea that someone who is capable and a proven winner, is not allowed to ride for it in case the opportunity presents itself.
And like i already said, there is a big difference between riding for a leader, or riding for a leader and not being allowed to take whichever small chance you might get when presented. It was ignorance and incompetence of Vanthourenhout and it was pure hubris by Van Aert. That's where it went to sht in the first place.