Aces high as Isner finally brings an end to Mahut's resistance

It had been tennis history in the making. Longest match ever – 11 hours five minutes from Tuesday evening to its conclusion yesterday afternoon. The deciding set alone, lasting eight hours 11 minutes, beat the previous record for longevity. And the contest had the highest number of aces – Isner delivering 112 and Mahut 103.

That's probably enough statistics for the most avid tennis anorak. What became an eerie, almost surreal factor in the closing stages was the lack of evidence why the match should ever end.

Serves dominated and rallies were brief. From an overnight deadlock of 59-59 the score crept into the 60s. John McEnroe and Tracey Austin shared the suspense of the crowd as a microphone-wielding Pam Shriver tried to explain what was happening to her American audience.

Then, suddenly, it was all over. Mahut , who had already served to stay in the match 64 times, found himself in trouble at

69-68. At 30-all Isner found the energy and accuracy to fire an unreturnable forehand which pitched on the side line. On match point he repeated the process with a searing backhand.

The spell was broken and an astonishing contest had ended. Isner and Mahut embraced as the spectators gave them the fervent ovation they richly deserved. And there was an on-court presentation to the two players and umpire Mohamed Lahyani by Ann Jones and Tim Henman.

A remarkable occasion made Court 18 the place to be irrespective of what was happening on Centre Court.

Mahut felt he had played in the greatest match ever in the greatest place to play tennis, while Isner praised his opponent for being "an absolute warrior – it stinks that someone had to lose."

The 6ft 9ins American admitted that he had been "completely delirious" the previous night when he wanted a final verdict, win or lose, rather than a stoppage for bad light. Interestingly, he was not in favour of Wimbledon introducing a tie-breaker in the fifth set to avoid the marathon he had just survived.

"I think they should keep it the same," he said. "Nothing like this – it won't happen again. Not even close."

As an unabashed traditionalist I agree with the victor – although I've never had to spend over 11 hours winning a tennis match. There is obviously a case for bringing a match to a manufactured conclusion in the deciding set instead of playing it out in the heroic fashion of Isner and Mahut.

But think of all the drama we would have missed and the spectacle of two fine players refusing to yield even when there was no apparent end in sight. As it was, we witnessed a piece of tennis history which will never be forgotten.