The pic-stats considers the 5th set; number of aces, service winners, double faults and break/total points are correct for the entire epic.

Points won in the first four sets and in the decider: | 132-137 | 346-365 |
Points won in the 5th set: twelve-game segments
[ 27-29, 32-28, 28-27, 36-36, 25-29, 29-35, 32-32, 29-35, 32-36, 32-35… 44-43 ] eighteen-game segment in the end, so a “10-8′ set
Points won directly behind the serve:
51 % Isner – 254 of 491
47 % Mahut – 230 of 489

Points won directly behind the serve in the first four sets: 49 % Isner – 61 of 123 | 33 service winners, 28 aces |… 43 % Mahut – 64 of 146 | 38 service winners, 26 aces |
Points won directly behind the serve in the decider: 52 % Isner – 193 of 368 | 108 service winners, 85 aces |… 48 % Mahut – 166 of 343 | 89 service winners, 77 aces |

This page it’s an attempt to analyse the unbelievable/unforgettable fifth set which lasted 8 hours 11 minutes, so much longer than the previous longest match (6:35 hrs between Santoro and Clement in Paris ’04)! The Wimbledon epic from Court No. 18, had been halted due to darkness at two sets apiece after almost three hours of play, and the following day they played more than seven hours to reach an unimaginable scoreline 59:59 before the match couldn’t be continued because of upcoming darkness (Mahut said he didn’t see the ball clearly). On the third day, they spent 67 minutes together on the court co-creating an “11-9” set.
Isner [19] failed to convert four match points in three games – at 10:9, 33:32 and 59:58, taking Mahut’s service game to deuce also at:
– 24:23
while the Frenchman [148] squandered a double mini-match point at 50-all, taking Isner’s service games to deuce also at:
– 23-all, 24-all, 34-all, 35-all, 39-all & 59-all

Scoreline & Time:
Day 1… 6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6… 2 hours 54 minutes
Day 2… (59:59)… 7 hours 4 minutes
Day 3… (11-9)… 1 hour 7 minutes

Curiosities of the final set:
– the longest game occurred at 24:23 (three deuces)…
– at 25-all (50 games) they overcame the duration of the four sets of the previous day when 45 games had been required to play almost three hours
– between 24:23 (deuce) and 33:32 (0/15) Mahut won 35 consecutive points on serve, then lost three in a row which meant a double-MP for Isner!
– between 34-all and 58-all Mahut looked much fresher and he was holding usually with extreme ease; more or less in that specific sequence it looked like the very tired Isner wouldn’t win that marathon because the American was able to hold actually only with the help of two strokes – serve and static forehand, his other shots and his movement were very poor as well as his attitude, some his basic strokes at the time looked like hitting during a warm-up, he was obtaining the points quickly anyway
– at 43-all Isner held his serve the only time in the decider not delivering an unreturned serve (six points in that game)
– the scoreboard stopped functioning at 47-all (the following day was fine)
– at 58:57 Mahut needed treatment to his blistered finger
– at 58-all they both went to the toilet so no spectator supposed that they would come back only for two games more
– when they resumed at 59-all, Mahut held nine times not losing more than one point in his games, then in the ultimate game he lost four points…
– Mahut didn’t serve an ace in his last five service games

The aftermath:
The totally exhausted Isner, who held 84 times in a row, began the following day his second round encounter losing his serve three times in a row, and was beaten by Thiemo de Bakker 0-6, 3-6, 2-6. In the first round of Wimbledon 2011, Isner and Mahut were drawn again to play against each other – that time the American won easily 7-6, 6-2, 7-6 in 2 hours 3 minutes, and each of them served only 8 aces which is the most bizarre thing about that match.

My MTF thread about the match