From what I can tell the 'Fyrd' system was in place for a long time in Anglo-Saxon England, having been implemented, used and improved since at least the time of Alfred the Great. While I understand that many troops would have been of relatively low quality, it still seems that it was a more efficient form of raising large forces than the ways the Normans later utilized.
Henry I did use the fyrd to fight off his brother Robert's attempted invasions in 1101.
I've read that both William I and William II used the fyrd (source Military Organization of Norman England). However, I can't vouch for the accuracy of that. But contemporary sources definitely record Henry I using the fyrd. Henry I was generally fond of English customs.
The phasing out of the fyrd is likely less to do with the Normans and more of an incidental impact of the rise of feudalism in England. Feudalism is an out of favor word and even if you use it the notion that the Normans brought it to England has been challenged but this period coincides with the cementing of feudal obligations all over Europe regardless of how it started in England. And the concept of feudalism is, at heart, just a system of obligations to provide military assistance in exchange for land and privileges. Local lords would be responsible for gathering the people directly under them into infantry. And the fyrd would be unnecessary. Now in many ways the fyrd may be preferable to that system from our POV. A feudal army is loyal to their direct overlord and not the king or the land. Whereas a fyrd is general raised for a specific purpose of protecting the shire or even realm rather than owing duty to their lord. But hindsight is 20/20.