No, not really. Blighty yeomen being way easier and cheaper to replace than fully armed and trained men-at-arms and similar quality close-combat troops, which was kind of a central reason in why there were so many of them in the English armies.

Thing is, Medieval warfare wasn't really about those big dramatic set-piece battles. The important thing was the control of the assorted fortified positions (which Europe had been very thoroughly filled with since the beginning of the Middle Ages), and winning major field battles only really assisted in that in A) letting you lay siege to them in the first place B) if you were lucky, the garrison had marched out to take part in that battle and been decimated. But for the most part the English had to deal with them the old-fashioned way, which is incidentally *the* major reason why territorial borders on the whole changed relatively little during the Middle Ages despite so much trying - those fortress networks were good at frustrating efforts at territorial conquest. (People wouldn't have spent so much money and effort bulding and maintaining the costly things if they weren't.)
Having to then also garrison what fortresses had been captured also obviously somewhat stretched the English manpower reserves...

Another thing that had a fairly important part in Medieval warfare was raiding and skirmishing by relatively small forces, and as already oft mentioned the French tended to do lot better there - much less C-and-C problems.

Finally, the French finally got their act together and reformed their military to a more reliably performing and manageable shape - the result being sometimes referred to as "Ordonnance French armies", after the royal ordinances involved in the reforms - and proceeded to evict the English from the Continent in a matter of decades. Getting serious about artillery on the side didn't hurt, either.