In tennis, the high demand and unpredictable duration of matches lead us to examine which are the most efficient methodologies for the development of athletes’ endurance. The objective of this study was to measure the evolution of technical effectiveness and intermittent endurance in tennis, through the comparison between the tactical periodization method (based on the game) and the ATR (traditional periodisation of accumulation, transformation and realization - based on physical abilities) in university players to establish the difference between methods. 16 university tennis players participated in this study; they were then divided into two groups. Both training methods were applied to each group in a different order, measuring the intermittent resistance after each intervention with an intermittent recovery yo-yo test of level-1 and the specific resistance and technical effectiveness by means of the set-test. The results show that the tactical periodization has a positive effect on the technical effectiveness, achieving a greater number of successful strokes. This occurs without a lower performance in the intermittent resistance, whereas the ATR method achieves a greater ability to travel greater distances in situations decontextualized from the game. The results give insight to physical trainers on how training of resistance could be developed in situations based on the game such as in the tactical periodization method, without neglecting the specific resistance which primarily occurs best in training of isolated physical capacities such as the ATR method.